F eminist and g ender t heories
participating in the existing relations of ruling
Download 0.84 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
38628 7
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Nonrational Rational Institutional ethnography: Walking the dog Figure 7.1
- Feminist and Gender Theories
participating in the existing relations of ruling. This point is illustrated in Figure 7.1. 7 In her most recent book, Smith (2005) updates her terminology by replacing the notion of “a sociol- ogy for women” with that of “a sociology for people.” In other words, the notion of “a sociology for women” can be understood as reflecting a particular historical era in which feminists called attention to the fact that the standpoint of women was absent in the academy. Today, however, the more perti- nent (and more postmodern) point is that we must begin wherever we are—that is, in terms not only of “gender,” but also of class, race, sexual orientation, ablebodiedness, and so on. This is institutional ethnography. 1 Nonrational Rational Institutional ethnography: Walking the dog Figure 7.1 Smith’s Concept of Institutional Ethnography: Walking the Dog Collective Individual Habituated experiential reality and consciousness Relations of ruling/ Institution of private property Relations of ruling/ Complexes of discourses Notion of “private property” Relatively conscious practices for avoiding sanctions Figure 7.1 Smith’s Concept of Institutional Ethnography: Walking the Dog Feminist and Gender Theories 323 s mith ’ s t heoretical o rientation Smith’s theoretical approach is explicitly multidimensional, as can be readily seen in her central concepts (see Figures 7.1 and 7.2). For instance, as discussed above, the term “institutional ethnography” explicitly reflects Smith’s dual emphasis on collec- tive structures of ruling/the institutionalization of power and their actual workings at the level of the individual in everyday life. In terms of action, as shown in Figure 7.1, institutional ethnography can be said to reflect a rationalistic emphasis on practical action both at the level of the individual and at the collective level of the institution; however, clearly Smith’s phenomenological roots lead her to appreciate the nonra- tional motivation for action, as well. Above all, Smith emphasizes that taken-for- granted, subjective categories provide the backdrop for the pragmatic performances that constitute the everyday world and, in doing so, reaffirm the existing structural order. For instance, in the example above, it is only because of her internalization of taken-for-granted notions of class and private property that Smith knows how and where to walk her dog. In Schutz’s terms, she uses specific “recipes” (see Chapter 6) and taken-for-granted habits, which, by definition, work at the individual/nonrational level. So, too, the term “standpoint” reflects Smith’s dual rational and nonrational approach to action and individual and collective approach to order, in that “standpoint” refers both to our objective (rational) position and our subjective (nonrational) position in the (collective) social hierarchy, and to our unique biographical (individual) situation. For instance, as shown in Figure 7.2, my “standpoint” as a mother is rooted at once in the meaning (including social status or honor) accorded to “mothers” in general in our society, as determined by the com- plexes of discourses that are part of relations of ruling (collective/nonrational), and the spe- cific reward structure accrued to that position by the (collective/rational) institutions Download 0.84 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling