Collective Biography and the Question of Difference

Abstract

This article engages with the research method of collective biography. We are particularly interested in what the question of difference brings to bear on the collective biography process. The aim of embodied writing in the collective biography process is “to tell the memory in such a way that it is vividly imaginable by others, such that those others can extend their own imaginable experience of being in the world through knowing the particularity of another” (Davies & Gannon). However, our own attempt to work with the method had us grappling with how to engage with a story that did not elicit understanding and identification but rather evoked, for some, a sense of incommensurable difference. By bringing together a poststructural concern with power relationships and a Deleuzian interest in engendering new synergies and possibilities, the article makes a theoretical contribution to new conceptual repertoires on the question of difference and its implications for feminist research.

Practicing Collective Biography

“…Our responses to these three challenges arising out of the methodology itself, even though they are potentially limiting, lend credence to the idea that the practice of collective biography has no firm rules (Gonick et al 2011). Indeed, the specific practices of collective biography within a group seem to be conditional on a variety of things, including, but not limited to: availability of time for even participation; commitment of group members over long periods of time; characteristics of group members in terms of identity and power; commensurability of theoretical frameworks and methodological commitments; processes in place to deal with problems arising within the group; and interest in a particular topic.…”

“…Rather than reading the challenge of women's experiences bound by social structures in the context of economic and state processes, collective biographers turned to examining the everyday thoughts and practices constitutive of the subject that are usually taken for granted (Davies and Gannon , p. 4), including topics such as women's and girls' experiences of sexualization, childhood memories of family rituals, performances of masculinity, and the embodiment of neoliberal practices in the academy (Gale and Wyatt ; Gannon ; Gonick et al ; Zabrodska et al ). These scholars have further challenged the structuralist orientation of the memory work project by taking a “Deleuzian turn” (Davies and Gannon ) emphasizing “innovations to the writing/revision process and affective relations of difference” (Gonick et al , p. 742). In all renditions of memory work and collective biography, the recollection and analysis of memories are central, critical elements that provide pathways for understanding the relationships between individuals' everyday lived experiences and wider social structures.…”

“…The design of collective biography itself promotes an exploration of subjectivity, as a “process of selving” (Davies and Gannon , p. 7), that is, how one becomes a subject. Through the writing, sharing, and revising processes, “the stories become documentary materials, created to search out the ways in which social life is made as common sense, fixed, and apparently unchangeable” (Gonick et al p. 742). The following final memory, also from the Victoria workshop and written in response to the question, “Can you recall a joyful moment as a feminist geographer in publishing?” illustrates the point:

I step into my home office after work, dropping my purple shoulder bag on the desk and shrugging off my fall coat.

…”

“…Bronwyn Davies and her collaborators extended memory work by using its principles in a poststructural theoretical context. Rather than reading the challenge of women's experiences bound by social structures in the context of economic and state processes, collective biographers turned to examining the everyday thoughts and practices constitutive of the subject that are usually taken for granted (Davies and Gannon 2006b, p. 4), including topics such as women's and girls' experiences of sexualization, childhood memories of family rituals, performances of masculinity, and the embodiment of neoliberal practices in the academy (Gale and Wyatt 2008;Gannon 2004;Gonick et al 2011;Zabrodska et al 2011). These scholars have further challenged the structuralist orientation of the memory work project by taking a "Deleuzian turn" (Davies and Gannon 2009) emphasizing "innovations to the writing/revision process and affective relations of difference" (Gonick et al 2011, p. 742).…”

A collective biography of joy in academic practice

“…Overall, it is a deeply reflexive, recursive method that seeks to make visible the 'process of selving' (Davies and Gannon 2006b: 7) within particular social contexts. It extends feminist commitments to collapsing distinctions between knower and known, questioning neutrality, and challenging what counts as knowledge (Gonick, Walsh, and Brown 2011).…”