Living Bodies of Thought

Abstract

There is a vital, yet often unrealized relationship between storytelling and critical approaches to autoethnography. Where autoethnography brings the personal, the concrete, and an emphasis on storytelling to our scholarship, it often leaves us wanting for clear and powerful theoretical frameworks for understanding how such stories help us write into or become the change we seek in the world. Critical theory provides us with such frameworks, though it is often dismissed as jargon-laden, difficult, and impersonal. The “critical” in critical autoethnography reminds us that theory is not a static or autonomous set of ideas, objects, or practices. Instead, theorizing is an ongoing process that links the concrete and abstract, thinking and acting, aesthetics, and criticism in what performance studies scholar Della Pollock describes as “living bodies of thought.” This essay engages a practice of performative and queer storytelling that links the concreteness, risk, and poetry of autoethnographic stories with the powerful intellectual and political commitments of critical theory as one example of critical autoethnography as a living body of thought.

Ethics in Autoethnography and Collaborative Autoethnography

“…Succinctly stated, “autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze (graphy) personal experience (auto) in order to understand cultural experience (ethno)” (Ellis et al, 2011). Ellis has emphasized the emotional and evocative aspects of gazing upon and writing about the vulnerable self within a cultural frame as a way to deepen the capacity for empathy across lines of difference (Ellis, 2004), whereas other autoethnographers have emphasized the analytical (Anderson, 2006a), critical (Holman Jones, 2016), psychological 1 (Poulos, 2013; Rambo, 2013), or the political (Holman Jones, 2005; Lincoln & Denzin, 2011) aspects. Holman Jones et al (2013) describe the characteristics that make personal narratives autoethnographic: “(1) purposefully commenting on/critiquing of culture and cultural practices , (2) making contributions to existing research , (3) embracing vulnerability with purpose , and (4) creating a reciprocal relationship with audiences in order to compel a response ” (p. 22).…”

“…As an approach to inquiry, autoethnography offers fertile ground for interrogating dominant theoretical stances and hegemonic paradigms, and furthering social justice aims (Denzin, 2003; Holman Jones et al, 2013). The method has been applied in areas as diverse as death and dying research (Richardson, 2007), critical race theory, feminist theory, sexuality studies, identity development, praxis of care (Visse & Niemeijer, 2016), and queer theory (Holman Jones, 2016). The rise of autoethnography as a methodology has contributed to and is a result of the reform of qualitative inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b).…”

Straddling Death and (Re)birth: A Disabled Latina’s Meditation on Collective Care and Mending in Pandemic Times

“…Critical autoethnography is a "living body of thought" (Jones, 2016) where we engage in a process of becoming that also allows us to question, reflect, and act on our experiences "with a specific focus on epiphanies that are deemed to have a particular influence on the course of life" (Winkler, 2018, p. 237). In critical autoethnography, we are required to commit "to linking analysis and action as they unfold together in a material and ethical practice-by creating bridges between analytic, practical, and aesthetic modes of inquiry and representation" (Jones, 2016, p. 232).…”

Professional and Personal Experiences as Leverage for Learning

“…Aptly, other critical autoethnographies in support of this include "Re-assembly Required: Critical Autoethnography and Spiritual Discovery" by Tilley-Lubbs (2017), "Critical Autoethnography: Intersecting Cultural Identities in Everyday Life, " edited by Boylorn and Orbe (2014). And "Living Bodies of Thought: The 'Critical' in Critical Autoethnography" by Holman Jones (2016). It is the latter who alerts us to the "critical" in "critical autoethnography" and reminds us that "theory is not a static or autonomous set of ideas, objects, or practices" (Holman Jones, 2016, p. 228).…”