Berry & Warren - Cultural Studies and the Politics of Representation - Experience- Subjectivity - Research

7/30/2019 Berry & Warren - Cultural Studies and the Politics of Representation - Experience- Subjectivity - Research

1/11

597

Authors Note: The authors wish to thank Norman Denzin for his support of this special issue as wellas Bud Goodall and Lenore Langsdorf for their reflective assistance during the writing of this essay.

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, Volume 9 Number 5, October 2009 597-607

DOI: 10.1177/1532708609337894

2009 SAGE Publications

Cultural Studies and the Politics ofRepresentation: Experience

Subjectivity ResearchKeith BerryUniversity of WisconsinSuperior

John T. WarrenSouthern Illinois University

This essay examines Joan W. Scotts (1991) essay The Evidence of

Experience in light of cultural studies scholarship that uses personal, expe-riential evidence, and/or innovative/critical methodologies. The authorsargue that the situated, (inter)subjective, and complex nature of this inquiryconscientiously has brought to life Scotts call for historicizing experience,rather than blindly using it as foundational, and enthusiastically continuesdoing so to date. In this way, these critical methods already seek to prob-lematize and complicate experience, even as it is used to talk toward and/or against cultural norms.

Keywords: evidence of experience; subjectivity; Joan W. Scott; autoethnography; performative

writing; historicizing

On the Loss of My Grandfathers House 11 Years

After His Death: An Experiential Introduction

It was four oclock on a Friday. I remember because I was surprised to gethome after a busy day and discover the one message on the machine was mymother. Her voice on the machine seemed stressed, as if she was going to dropsome bad news. I am always aware of this voice, this tired and strained voice thatdraws me back to the death of my auntSweetie, Aunt Pat has cancer. Its bad. Ifear that this voice is calling to tell me about my grandmotherShe is not well.My grandmother is almost completely overtaken by the Alzheimers nowShehas no memory of my grandfather who died of cancer 11 years ago, the home mygrandfathers hands built when they moved to Michigan, nor the members of myfamily who now struggle to remember who she was before she became who she


2/11

598 Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies October 2009

has become. So it is the voice of death I hear on the phone, and I think of mygrandmother who I suspect has joined my grandfather not on Paw Paw Avenuebut in Memorial Gardens. My heart has prepared for this call, but I am unsure of

how to feel. I pick up the phone and call home, already beginning to imagine howI can arrange to get to Michigan for the funeral.

Hello? my mothers voice is tired, but it has lost some of the sorrow thatcoded the message, still blinking on the machine.

Hi, Mom. Whats up? I ask.Oh, Im glad you called. Theres something I need to tell you. We knew it

would happen, although we hoped it wouldnt. Her voice is shaking a bit, but Iam confused. In my mind I have had this conversationthe death callwith mymother countless times, and this does not sound like I suspected it would. Its

gone. Grandpas house. Bea called and its gone. Bulldozed. His house. And theydid it on his birthday.

For a second I am relieved. My grandmother, although still in the gray fog thatcauses her so much anguish, is still there. We still have her material body to hugand her physical hand to touch. I am relieved as I listen to my mother fight thetears. She is fighting the tears I know she has already spent. Crying for the housemy grandfather built with his own hands. Crying for the barn that once held histools, his tractor, his workbench. Crying for the home she grew up in and homemy brothers and I trekked to every holiday for large family gatherings. Crying for

my grandfathers bathroom, pea green with ivory tile. Crying for what was his,but hasnt been for over a decade. Crying for what was sold, rented, scavenged,and demolished. Crying for the now lack of physicality that allowed her to glanceand remember. She is crying.

And while she is crying but not, I begin to understand the impact of what hashappened. Its gone. That place so vivid in my memory is gone. I remember theOld Spice smell of his bathroom. I remember the feel of the white sand betweenmy toes as I walked through the back yard where the peach trees grew. I remem-ber the mustard carpet in the living room that made the slightest sound as the

weight of a body moved board against board. I remember the taste of Pepsi fromthe bottles my grandmother would buy as I sat in front of the television on theback porch. I remember my grandfather sleeping in his favorite olive green chair,his false teeth hanging precariously from his mouth as he peacefully snored. Yes,I remember this place and begin to more intimately grasp the loss of my grand-fathers house 11 years after his death.

I understand the reason for its destruction. Whirlpool, the large corporationthat has its headquarters on the same block with dreams of owning and expandingto cover the vast land surrounding their corporate offices, has included my grand-

fathers house in the destruction of five other houses. The houses to them are justraw material that stands in the way, but to my mother, these houses representfamilies and histories; they embody those people who owned them. The bath-room, living room, kitchen, front step, the door with the Grear G, and thecreaky floor is just stuff reduced to trash to be carried away making way for new


3/11

material that will be erected in its place. And knowing this, I am sad, angry, andempty. This material, now absent, creates a hole in me that I find hard to ignore.But I know it isjust stuff, just wood, paint, cement, carpet, porcelain, and tile. But

I also know I hold on to those materialistic bits like I am holding on to the person.Like if I can keep that house, that stuff, I can keep something of the man whocreated it.

But this is fantasy. Sure, that stuff has meaning, but only because I (and oth-ers) allow this significance. I allow stuff to run and function as my memory ofthose experiences and people who are a part of my past. I take photos, protectingthem in frames and mounting them on the refrigerator and on my walls. I dis-play the penthe one that fell out of my grandfathers pocket the day hediedon my bookshelf next to his photo. I place toys, books, and other items

on my office desk, storying them to anyone who has a passing minute. I do thisbecause I depend on those things. For some reason, the time, the people, and theexperiences I enjoyed need some object to make their existence memorable. I needthese things because I fear I have lost the ability to remember without them. I soclearly buy into the logic of this materialistic sense of things that I lack the abilityto knowto rememberwithout them.

Its all gone, my mother says after a long silence.No, as long as we remember it will always be there.Yes, I suppose you are right. I suspect neither of us really believes it. After

all, it isgone.*****

We begin this essay in narrative, building from an experience from one of theauthors, using it to build a context for discussing how experience is used in criti-cal, qualitative methods in cultural studies. On some level, it serves as a reminderto ourselves of the kind of possibilities we see in narrative; however, it also posesa question about the value of experience in cultural studies research. Does thepersonal, the situated, move our scholarship and our pursuit of knowledge for-

ward? As in the narrative above, how does experience open certain kinds of know-ing to others? How does such writing preclude others from entering it? Andwhose responsibility is it to make the most of personal experiencethe author orthe reader, as Pollock (2007) so powerfully reminded us?

We are properly communication scholars, though like so many find our disci-plinary homes are less and less clear as fields lose their borders and categories ofknowledge leak. Each of us incorporate interdisciplinary scholarship, oftenforgetting what was written by someone in sociology, philosophy, anthropology,and history. This ambiguity illustrates both the value of cultural studies as it

breaks and recasts scholars and our writing, as well as a potentially troubling partof larger cultural patterns of forgetting the past and how the past generated thepresent. This essay is our attempt to generate a space for talking about the role ofexperience in experimental and innovative research methods. We here take toheart the warnings of scholars like Joan W. Scott who question the role of experi-ence in scholarship, who productively trouble how subjects who are constituted

Berry, Warren ExperienceSubjectivity Research 599


4/11


by experience can concurrently maintain experiences that stand as stable andunquestionable truths of those subjects. Specifically, we ask how cultural studiesmethods have responded and incorporated this critique in our work and question

the work still needing to be done.

Complicating Experience and Its Subjects

Joan W. Scotts (1991) The Evidence of Experience examines qualitativeresearch on difference and, more broadly, subjectivity, in which scholars prioritizetheir lived experience as evidence. Scotts interrogation, largely grounded in his-torical scholarship, focuses on how scholars commonly rely on experience in limit-ing ways, allowing such usage to stand as beyond critique. She called out historians

whom she felt allow experiences (often of marginalized and historically underex-amined populations) to stand in for a more complex historicization of subjects andtheir lives. She underscored the seriousness of critical inquiry for all conscientiousresearchers of social life; particularly, her examination speaks to cultural studiesscholars whose interest is studying the complexities of subjectivity.

Of particular concern for Scott are the ways using lived experience implicatesour understanding of experience itself. Scott argued, When the evidence isexperience, the claim for referentiality is further buttressedwhat could betruer, after all, than a subjects own account of what he or she has lived through?

(1991, p. 777). The fear is that experience (in historical writings) can get framedas privileged, natural, and self-evident evidence on which one can gain access tothe true lives of the people in the narrative. This framing, in turn, posturesresearchers in particular ways and skews our perception and overall discernmentof evidence. Scott described how experience makes possible a heightened per-ception of authority, legitimacy, and autonomy among experienced scholarstheir stories stand alone as foundational and removed from debate. She arguedthat experience serves as uncontestable evidence and as an originary point ofexplanation [that] becomes bedrock of evidence on which explanation is built

(p. 777). Examining experience used in these unproductive and unreflectiveways reminds us that to argue from personalized positions does not mean ourwork is immune to critique, as Medford (2006), Ellis (2007), and Berry (2006),among others, rightly reminded us when they warned that writing the personalhas implications beyond the solitary self writing the story. Scott (1991) renderscentral concern about experience as follows: The evidence of experience worksas a foundation providing both a starting point and a conclusive kind of explana-tion, beyond which few questions can or need to be asked (p. 790). Scott, inturn, works to unsettle this foundation and resist the uncontestable location of

experience in scholarship.Scotts argument raises important questions concerning authenticity and opens

up spaces to investigate how narrators rely on lived experience and, in effect, writeas if their claims are not available to those who did not have the exact same experi-ence. The implications for cultural studies research are important to acknowledge:


5/11


Researchers lived experience can and does certainly come to play in the writing ofour research; however, how scholars use experiential evidence must be consideredcarefully as its purpose should be to open that experience up for dialogue, not shut

it down. Experience can counterproductively preclude a productive dialoguebetween researchers, readers, and ideas; its uses can thwart necessary and criticalexploration in the service of being right or true. Scott continued,

And yet it is precisely the questions precludedquestions about discourse, differ-ence, and subjectivity, as well as about what counts as experience and who gets tomake that determinationthat would enable us to historicize experience, and toreflect critically on the history we write about it, rather than to premise our historyon it. (1991, p. 790)

Rightly, she reminds us that it is the job of scholars to locate experience (likeall evidence we might bring to bear on a topic) within its contextsto histori-cize experience means we come to see how that understanding is constituted bythe cultural experiences embedded in the research.

Scotts critique carefully asks us to reorient the ways we understand experienceand its relationship to/with subjectivity. Historicizing experience entails repre-senting it as a subjective and discursive process, which, as she argued, is alwayscontextual, contested, and contingent (p. 796). Experience, argued Scott, can-not be understood as distinct from the actual process of reflection on that experi-

ence (that is, one cannot separate whatone experienced from howone understandsthat experience). An experience is always spatiotemporally rooted in (or informedby) given locations (physical, emotional, thoughtful contexts), subject to diver-gent meanings, and is necessarily subject to change over time as reflection (andfurther reflection) changes whathappened more and more toward howwhat hap-pened has made me who I am. What is at stake in the questioning of experienceextends far beyond whether using experience is a good or bad idea; for her, thecentral problem is how scholarship that locates experiential evidence as uncon-testable obscures how the experiencing self is produced through the experiences

he or she undergoes. Scott wants us to see subjectivity as a discursive phenome-non, not only in terms of the ways undergoing experience produces subjects butalso the ways the telling of these experiences also produces subjects: It is notindividuals who have experience, but subjects who are constituted through expe-rience (p. 779). Indeed, contrasting widely accepted positions regarding humanidentity that portray communicators as being more static and predeterminedselves (i.e., being more stable and formed outside of experience), we come intobeing by participating in complex, emergent interactional processes or culturalperformances. This, in turn, renders cultural representation (e.g., scholarly writ-

ing using experience) a complex and often less-certain enactment, which, conse-quently, prompts a consistent reminder for cultural studies researchers to amplifythe depths of our analyses.

Historicizing experience and its malleable subjects means resolutely directingourselves to the conditions that make both possible and necessary, or, according


6/11


to Scott, attend[ing] to the historical processes that, through discourse, positionsubjects and produce [our] experiences (1991, p. 779). She continued,

Experience in this definition then becomes not the origin of our explanation, notthe authoritative (because seen or felt) evidence that grounds what is known, butrather that which we seek to explain, that about which knowledge is produced.(1991, pp. 779-780)

Scotts orientation for doing critical research (the emphasis on process, inter-pretation, contingency, etc.) advocates a constitutive understanding of experienceand subjectivity. Her move toward Foucault at the end of her essay situates theuse of experience firmly within the logic of genealogy, that is, a shift from this ismy experience and is therefore not anyone elses to critique to this is my experi-

ence, and, in the telling, I show how social and political forces are at play withhow, why and to what end I tell it. In this way, experience is problematized, nottaken for granted; we consider not only the story but also the diverse influencesthat govern our crafting of the story in the first place. In addition, as Pollock(2007) wisely reminded us, the reader/audience cannot just back away from theirresponsibility either: A reader who chickens out is not a writers problem.

In the next section of this essay, we describe how Scott has informed the workundertaken by cultural studies scholars who use experience as a foil to examineculture. Although Scotts work is self-described as a questioning of how we might

write history, its publication not only in Critical Inquirybut later in her coeditedcollection (1992) Feminists Theorize the Politicalsuggests a reading across disci-plines (feminism, critical theory, cultural studies, anthropology, etc.) is both pos-sible and warranted. Indeed, we find much of her concerns responded to in thework of scholars in journals like Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies.Perhaps, as a result of her efforts, we have learned and grown, locating the per-sonal within the critical and innovative methods that guide our scholarship.

Responding to the Call: Autoethnography

and Performativity as Discourse

We are interpretive qualitative researchers of communication. Keith uses herme-neutic phenomenology and ethnomethodology, along with diverse ethnographicresearch methods to study identity negotiation as creatively constituted througheveryday sites of cultural and intercultural communication. John examines cul-ture (gender, sexuality, race, and difference generally) through (auto)ethnographicmethods, seeking to locate the constitution of culture within communicationnorms commonly used in everyday contexts. As a result of our own commitments,

we move now to how we have witnessed scholarship that uses (and, we argue, his-toricizes) experiencial evidence to examine culture.

Autoethnography is an interpretive research method through which scholarsseek to evocatively narrate the selves experiences in diverse cultural settings. Theapproach is diverse due to the multiple definitions that conceptualize the method


7/11


(Ellis & Bochner, 2000) and the varying ways scholars enact its inquiry (e.g.,dialogic formats, poetry, photography, other artistic approaches, and the moretraditional linear design in writing; Bochner & Ellis, 2002). Autoethnographers

pursue a better understanding of culture and subjectivity by examining culturalexperiences (and, as a result, themselves as cultural agents). Often, such work isdirected toward alleviating suffering of the author (Berry, 2007; Ellis, 2004),the reproduction of power (Warren, 2001), and posing the possibility of healing(DeSalvo, 2002).

Performative writing, while related, is a way of conceptualizing writing thatconstitutes that which it describes. Pollock (1998) defined performative writing asdoing; that is, writing becomes itself, becomes its own means and ends, recover-ing to itself the force of action (p. 75). Performative writers often use autoethnog-

raphy as a vehicle for writing their stories, but the two are not the same. Indeed,performative writing can take on many forms, such as dialogue (Warren & Fassett,2002), fiction (Corey & Nakayama, 1997), embodied writing (Tillmann-Healy,1996), collage (Kilgard, 2005), and combinations of multiple performative genres(Miller & Pelias, 2001; Pelias, 2004).

Autoethnographic and performative writing approaches, following Scott, rep-resent especially discursive processes (see Berry, 2006; Ellis, 2004; Goodall, 2000;Pelias, 2004; Warren & Fassett, 2002). This discourse is processual in nature and,thus, is a temporal phenomenon governed by influences of persons past, lived

present, and anticipated future experiences. Working in contrast to fixed posi-tions regarding the nature of experience and subjects, the process is ongoing,often complex, and uncertain. That is to say, what is at stake in both autoethnog-raphy and performative writing is the production of culturehow identities andculture are produced through representation. This work highlights the mecha-nisms of production, asking how the self/story/culture in the narrative is pro-duced through the cultural experience as well as the telling of those experiences.Often the telling of these narratives not only documents certain pasts (historiciz-ing of an experience) but also sketch possible futures (hence, multiplying the

possibilities for understanding brought to our attention through this historiciz-ing). This possiblizing serves as a political aim, aligning these methods to criticaltheory and the desire to create contexts for change.

Several key assumptions shape the discursive nature of autoethnography andperformative writing (i.e., what it means to produce the research and, in so doing,constitute the experience and subjects of involved persons). We follow by describ-ing each separately:

Experience is a situated, cultural phenomenon. Representations of cultural experi-ences are grounded or located in distinctive sociocultural contexts, along with

the communicative practices comprising those cultural scenes (Carbaugh, 1996). Inthis sense, representation is governed by researchers descriptive practices, which,in that we forever are subjective beings, are governed by the varying and diverserealms of lived experience informing our lives. Experience situated in this fashioncalls into question social scientific positions limitedly pursing generalizability and


8/11


universality in research and prompts consideration of cultural phenomena as beingfar more contingent than we might ordinarily presume, which prompts Goodall(2000) to conceptualize all ethnographic discourse as partial, problematic, and par-

tisan (p. 55). Returning to the opening narrative for a moment, one can see how theevent of the destruction of the childhood home is situated within the discursiveconstruction of memory and commodification. However, the grieving subject andthe loss itself are situated within the contextual frame, producing a self-reflexive nar-rative that already problematizes these experiences even as the author narrates it.

Subjectivity is a complex outcome of diverse cultural experiences. This is to say, wecome into being within cultural performance, within the (re)productive, collab-orative enactment of our lives. Just as everyday interaction is an interdependentprocess, the formation of selves is enacted in cooperation with others. An apt

description of our situatedness is that we are intersubjectively constituted; asCalvin O. Schrag (2003) writes, No I is an island entire of itself; every subjectis a piece of the continent of other subjects, a part of the main of intersubjectivity(p. 125; see also p. 132). Thus, understanding ourselves through cultural studiesresearch, and, for that matter, all research, is an undertaking of discerning situatedsubjectivities or selves who are dynamically crafted in the production of everydayexperiences. Again, the narrative that begins this essay can be seen as a windowinto the production of the self, the making of a subject (a grandchild, for exam-ple) through cultural performance of that self and in relation to others.

The introspective and descriptive practices of autoethnography and performativewriting enable researchers to perform as skillful artists who portray descriptive andevocative snapshots of cultural life. Often as idiosyncratic as the persons who cre-ate the research, these methods join the desire and need to conscientiouslyreport on aspects of social life that matters most to us and also remains resolutein privileging (inter)subjectivity(ies) over objectivity, dialogue over monologue,and rich description over dogmatic explanation. Doing cultural studies scholar-ship in this way renders scholars, to varying extents, vulnerable and inquiringor processing subjects (Berry, 2008). One becomes a cultural critic swept up

and influenced by the crafting of our research. The opening narrative, in asmuch as it serves as a space for others to view their own cultural production ofmemory, is potentially evocative of how one mourns and how materiality islinked to cultural practices of loss.

Gannon (2006) argued, Writing about oneself is risky writing. It is difficultto write about the self and to be an escape artist from the self at the same time(p. 484). Both autoethnography and performative writing share a commitment torisky writing, often using the personal (indeed, offering the fragility of a self will-ingly to others) to both bear witness to how culture has been experienced, while

also situating those experiences within complicated social and political contexts.This writing is not meant to let the self off the hook as it goes about the work ofhistoricizing the constitutive mechanisms of everyday life; rather, it places the selfon the line, knowing that those experiences are out of their control as they enterthe space of public debate. That risk means that Scotts (1991) critique of how


9/11


experience often stands as unassailable (p. 797) has contributed to how culturalstudies scholars have modified their work to turn experience into possibility.

Implications

Scotts (1991) pointing toward subjectivity as a central point of contentionwithin experiential scholarship requires a continuing process of questioning andchallenging of those aspects of critical/cultural inquiry we might tend to take forgranted. What we learn the most from Scotts experience of experience in scholar-ship (for her concern is, ultimately, based in her experience of how experience isproffered in research) is the need for increased reflexivity in our critical scholarship.That is, when we forget that all research is filtered through a subject constituted

through culture, we easily slip into a kind of essentialism that erases complexity infavor of easy claims. Scott, like Foucault whom she cited, wants us to always situ-ate the present within a framework of the pastthat is, the now as a product ofpast communicative acts. Like a story about the bulldozing of Grampas house onhis birthday, experience is always a representation, a collage, a simulation of theactual past. By extensively historicizing our work, we, in turn, render scholars,properly, people; we become persons whose ways of being as cultural critics areforever inseparable with the conditions that make possible and necessary culturalphenomena.

Still, considering Scotts call, we are reminded that, by privileging lived experi-ence, autoethnographers and performative writers respond to historical traditionsof objectivist research that has avoided the subjective nature of scholarship. Theyprovide previously silenced voices with an impressive and welcoming intellec-tual space for describing cultural phenomena to others through the viable lensesof our own everyday experience. Marginalized voices based on race, gender, sexualorientation, and other underrepresented groups have a safer space to explore our-selves and others, and in diverse ways, which has helped to create a richly diversecommunity of scholars with a wealth of experiences from which to draw.

What remains less clear are issues associated with the actual practice of histo-ricizing, particularly with respect to writing ourselves and cultural experiences.With Adams (2009, [this issue]), we believe that historicizing, depending on itsuse, makes especially vulnerable those researchers whose selves are already espe-cially vulnerable. Researchers thus get located within a space of desiring complex-ity, while concomitantly longing to cultivate and communicate a voice that feelsfitting to them. And so this uncertainty prompts us to ask the following: Howmuch historicizing is enough? That is, to what extent can/should we excavate thevarying conditions that make our experiences and representations possible, while

not undermining the creative work endemic to these methods? Moreover, in thatdoing cultural studies scholarship is, in its own right, a viable cultural experiencethrough which, following Scott, researchers/subjects get constituted, how mightmagnifying the extent to which we historicize complicate our experiences? Ascultural studies scholars who continue to advance unique conceptual focuses as


10/11


well as the innovative methods through which these interests get represented,points of intrigue like these, which emphasize the need to more carefully andcritically examine how we subjects convey ourselves, are of increased importance

and worthy of extended discussion.

References

Adams, T. E. (this issue). Mothers, faggots, and witnessing (un)contestable experience. Cultural

Studies Critical Methodologies.

Berry, K. (2006). Implicated audience member seeks understanding: Reexamining the gift

of autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 1-12. Retrieved July

25, 2007, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_3/html/berry.htm

Berry, K. (2007). Embracing the catastrophe: Gay body seeks acceptance. QualitativeInquiry, 13, 259-281.

Berry, K. (2008). Promise in Peril: Ellis and Pelias and the Subjective Dimensions of

Ethnography. The Review of Communication, 8 (2), 154-173.

Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (2002). Ethnographically speaking. Lanham, MA: AltaMira Press.

Butler, J., & Scott, J. (1992). Feminists theorize the political. New York: Routledge.

Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social identities in American

scenes. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Corey, F. C., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997). Sextext. Text and Performance Quarterly, 17,

66-77.DeSalvo, L. (2002). Writing as a way of healing: How telling our stories transforms our lives.

San Francisco: Harper.

Ellis, A., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexive-ty:

Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut

Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3-29.

Gannon, S. (2006). The (im)possibilities of writing the self-writing: French poststructural-ist theory and autoethnography. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 6, 474-495.

Goodall, H. L., Jr. (2000). Writing the new ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira

Press.

Kilgard, A. K. (2005). Directing performances of border crossing: An allegory of turnst(y)

les. In L. Lengel & J. T. Warren (Eds.), Casting gender: Women and performance in

intercultural contexts(pp. 145-164). New York: Peter Lang.

Medford, K. (2006). Caught with a fake ID: Ethical questions about slippagein autoeth-

nography. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 853-864.

Miller, L. C., & Pelias, R. J. (Eds.). (2001). The green window: Proceedings of the giant cityconference on performative writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Pelias, R. (2004).A methodology of the heart: Evoking academic and daily life. Walnut Creek,

CA: Alta Mira Press.


11/11


Pollock, D. (1998). Performative writing. In P. Phalen & J. Lane (Eds.), The ends of per-

formance(pp. 73-103). New York: New York University Press.

Pollock, D. (2007). The performative I. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 7,

239-255.Schrag, C. O. (2003). Communicative praxis and the space of subjectivity. West Lafayette,

IN: Purdue University Press.

Scott, J. W. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical Inquiry, 17, 773-797.

Tillmann-Healy, L. M. (1996). A secret life in the culture of thinness: Reflections on body,

food and bulimia. In C. Ellis & A. P. Bochner (Eds.), Composing ethnography: Alternative

forms of qualitative writing(pp. 76-108). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Warren, J. T. (2001). Absence for whom? An autoethnography of White subjectivity.

Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 1, 36-49.

Warren, J. T., & Fassett, D. L. (2002). (Re)constituting ethnographic identities. QualitativeInquiry, 8, 575-590.

Keith Berry is an Assistant Professor of Communicating Arts at University ofWisconsin-Superior ([email protected]).

John T. Warren ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor of Speech Commu-nication at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Documents

Berry & Warren - Cultural Studies and the Politics of Representation - Experience- Subjectivity - Research