I find Joan Scott's article infuriating and exhilarating in almost equal measure.
She suggests that we begin doubting "experience" itself. We have to be critical not only when we read secondary sources but also when we read the primary sources – including firsthand accounts. Scott believes that historical actors are unaware of the contingency of their experience. For instance if we read someone's account of their experience as a gay black man in 1960s America, the very first thing as conscientious historians we must do is dismantle the categories of "gay" and "black". Scott believes that these categories (and others like them) are byproducts of the hegemonic discourse. This is supposed to be true even when the historical actors in question embrace these identities and use them to create a sense of collective solidarity. They have been duped into adopting them.
I find this remarkably similar to Marxist ideas of false consciousness.
It is up to a historian of Scott's calibre to deconstruct firsthand "experience" and find out what was really going on in the life of the historical actor.
If we take this approach to its logical conclusion we will end up dismantling ALL ideas, including any that Scott invents to replace current epistemological frameworks. If everything is constructed and a product of its time then nothing can help us uncover any truth.
I would like to argue that even if experience is "constructed", it still is real. It created categories in which the historical actor lived his life and defined how he thought of himself.
Nevertheless, I think Scott has presented a very important idea. We can use it to enrich historical methods if not too replace them entirely. As she hints in the conclusion herself, instead of abandoning the concept of experience, we can study it more critically: we can look at its content along with analysing its constructive currents.
My exhilaration comes from the fact that Scott has opened up the possibilities of existence for historical actors by undermining the "fixedity" of their definitions of themselves. There is much more to being human now.
I also think it's very clever how Scott points out that speaking out against the hegemonic discourse is pointless and hypocritical if one ends up proposing a new equally "fixed" alternative in its place.
She suggests that we begin doubting "experience" itself. We have to be critical not only when we read secondary sources but also when we read the primary sources – including firsthand accounts. Scott believes that historical actors are unaware of the contingency of their experience. For instance if we read someone's account of their experience as a gay black man in 1960s America, the very first thing as conscientious historians we must do is dismantle the categories of "gay" and "black". Scott believes that these categories (and others like them) are byproducts of the hegemonic discourse. This is supposed to be true even when the historical actors in question embrace these identities and use them to create a sense of collective solidarity. They have been duped into adopting them.
I find this remarkably similar to Marxist ideas of false consciousness.
It is up to a historian of Scott's calibre to deconstruct firsthand "experience" and find out what was really going on in the life of the historical actor.
If we take this approach to its logical conclusion we will end up dismantling ALL ideas, including any that Scott invents to replace current epistemological frameworks. If everything is constructed and a product of its time then nothing can help us uncover any truth.
I would like to argue that even if experience is "constructed", it still is real. It created categories in which the historical actor lived his life and defined how he thought of himself.
Nevertheless, I think Scott has presented a very important idea. We can use it to enrich historical methods if not too replace them entirely. As she hints in the conclusion herself, instead of abandoning the concept of experience, we can study it more critically: we can look at its content along with analysing its constructive currents.
My exhilaration comes from the fact that Scott has opened up the possibilities of existence for historical actors by undermining the "fixedity" of their definitions of themselves. There is much more to being human now.
I also think it's very clever how Scott points out that speaking out against the hegemonic discourse is pointless and hypocritical if one ends up proposing a new equally "fixed" alternative in its place.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.