A late note on last week's reading (Awndrea Caves, though she is currently known as Jessica Rabbit)

Last week I did not manage a post, but I did want to point out one idea that I felt could be fruitful.    Mullen mentions Johannes Fabian's concept of "intersubjectivity."  Mullen says "Since absolute objectivity is impossible, the ideal is to consider various subject positions to arrive at a consensus of intersubjectivity that in this case would include cross-racial dialogue even before research results are published" (11).  I am not familiar with Fabian's concept and find it intriguing, though I feel sadly skeptical of it actually bearing out in academic publications.  We spoke in class about how the subject's voice is ignored in a lot of academic folklore work.  Someone mentioned Rigoberta Menchu's work "I, Rigoberta Menchu."  I read this book for my MA exam.  This book had some of the flaws that we have been pointing out in discussion.  We do have more of Menchu's own words, but she had co-authors, who had a strong hand in presenting the material.  These were Elisabeth Burgos-Debray and Ann Wright.  Burgos-Debray wrote the introduction and this is where the reader may first notice the discordant moments that suggest the editor's presence in way that may obscure Menchu's voice.

 At least this was my understanding from reading it and from my discussions with my exam adviser.  But it had less of this problem than "Conversations with Ogotommeli," in which the writer was clearly the more paternalistic type, such as Lomax.  However, according to some sources, Marcel Griaule, the researcher, actually threatened the Dogon spiritual leader, Ogotemmeli with exposure of sacred sites in order to gain information on some of the Dogon practices outlined in the book.  "Black Elk Speaks" would be the classic American and American Indian example of setting up a work as from the mouth of one who is the “other” and knows sacred knowledge, while having the heavy hand of the researcher doing the recording, transcribing, and editing.  "Black Elk Speaks" can be a touchy subject because of its importance, but I believe not to acknowledge how much control John G. Neihardt had in its presentation would be dishonest and misleading about the work as it is and how it could really be applied in American Indian studies.  Interestingly enough, Neihardt wanted, in later editions, to have his name listed as Flaming Rainbow, his native name, and have himself referred to the interpreter rather than the author.  These examples show an interesting range of how the researchers worked with and presented the voice of the “other.”  These make me wonder what “intersubjectivity” would really look like.

P.S.  There will be a post forthcoming over this week’s reading, but just now I must put on my Jessica Rabbit costume and go to Prof. Alvarez’s birthday party.   :)