The author offers a deconstructive reading of the distinction between “analytic” and “evocative” autoethnography, situating it as a shibboleth that, while useful to many, is often performed in ways that resemble the homophobic “concern” about the consequences of equality. He situates this deconstruction within a larger tale about the almond grove at the edge of his grandparents’ property and a reflection on the confirmation his grandmother gave him.
AndersonL. (2006). Analytic autoethnography.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373–395. doi:10.1177/0891241605280449
2.
AndersonL., & Glass-CoffinB. (2013). I learn by going: Autoethnographic modes of inquiry. In Holman JonesS., AdamsT. E., & EllisC. (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 57–83). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
CoreyF. C., & NakayamaT. K. (1997). Sextext Text and Performance Quarterly, 17, 58–68. doi:10.1080/10462939709366169
5.
DerridaJ. (1994). Shibboleth: For Paul Celan (Joshua Wilner, Trans.). In FioretosA. (Ed.), Word traces: Readings of Paul Celan (pp. 3–72). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
DunnD. (2009). Accounts and account giving. In LittlejohnS. W., & FossK. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 4–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
EllisC., & BochnerA. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Gingrich-PhilbrookC. (1998a). Autobiographical performance and carnivorous knowledge: Rae C. Wright's Animal Instincts.Text and Performance Quarterly, 18, 63–79. doi:10.1080/10462939809366210
9.
Gingrich-PhilbrookC. (1998b). Disciplinary violation as gender violation: The stigmatized masculine voice of performance studies.Communication Theory, 7, 203–220. doi:10.1111/j,1468–2885.1998.tb00218.x
10.
Gingrich-PhilbrookC. (2005a). Ambition vs. inflation in the poetry of Jorie Graham: A lesson for autoperformance.Text and Performance Quarterly, 25, 27–42. doi:10.1080/10462930500052319
11.
Gingrich-PhilbrookC. (2005b). Autoethnography's family values: Easy access to compulsory experiences.Text and Performance Quarterly, 25, 297–314. doi:10.1080/10462930500362445
Holman JonesS., AdamsT. E., & EllisC. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 17–47). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
14.
JohnsonB. (1980). The critical difference: Essays in the contemporary rhetoric of reading.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
LangellierK. M. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research.Text and Performance Quarterly, 9, 243–276. doi:10.1080/10462938909365938
16.
Leeds-HurwitzW. (1993). Semiotics and communication: Signs, codes, cultures.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
McLaughlinT. (1996). Street smarts and critical theory: Listening to the vernacular.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
18.
McNeillW. (1999). The glance of the eye: Heidegger, Aristotle, and the ends of theory.Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
MurphyR. F. (1987). The body silent: The different world of the disabled.New York, NY: Henry Holt.
20.
SuvinD. (1988). Can people be (re)presented in fiction?: Toward a theory of narrative agents and a materialist critique beyond technology or reductionism. In NelsonC., & GrossbergL. (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 663–696). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
21.
UlmerG. L. (2005). Electronic monuments.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
