“Those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly…. The man or woman who proclaims devotion to the cause of human liberation yet is unable to enter into communion with the people… is grievously self-deceived. The convert who approaches the people but… attempts to impose his ‘status’ remains nostalgic towards his origins [as a member of an oppressive class].”
-Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
My bumbling quest for THE research question is complicated by an identity crisis – what am I?
My official title is researcher, but this new hat sits awkwardly on my head. How do I reconcile this with my personal ethics and a longer history as “one devoted to the cause of human liberation”? Read the quote above and tell me how I am supposed to live up to this standard while at the same time produce academic work. Can it be done? Who has done it before? How would I do it in São Paulo?
I am only starting to get a taste for what being a researcher means, and the implications this could have on my work, my relations with people as I develop it, and what I will be in a position to produce. I can’t yet tell if they are implications I should welcome.
There are definite benefits to the researcher hat, don’t get me wrong. When I wave the Fulbright flag I get the time, attention, and help of powerful and well educated people who wouldn’t give me the time of day if I were, say, a random social justice activist (and foreign at that). Yet at the same time this relationship tends to force my thinking and communication into distinct boxes: they want to know my research question, methodology, and plans to proceed up front. I tend to get blank stares or a few confused questions when I start off any other way- traction only comes when I start speaking the academic language.
What I really want is a heart-to-heart with a Brazilian social justice academic who can share their experiences and insight, but one can’t expect to waltz into a random office and have this type of interaction within the first 15 minutes. It might take months to find this person and have this conversation.
Add this to the troubles I will soon have engaging favela residents, let alone academics, and my head is ready to explode.
The kicker? This is an identity I will be negotiating for the next 8 months, and perhaps the rest of my life if I continue academic pursuits. (Readers… your input would be appreciated, please consider a comment or e-mail!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
wow, great questions, Laura! It sounds like your identity questions mainly revolve around questions of how to interact with other people- I guess that makes sense, if your identity is "researcher." The quote is provocative too- does that mean you can't harbor the intention of helping them in some way without being self-accused of being nostalgic to your previous condition as an oppressor (or however it was worded)? What's your vision for these people in the long run?
Hmm, I guess I will reply via the blog instead of e-mail. I didn't think this thing through did I?!
It means that "scientific objectivity" demands a specific type of relationship with the topic of study. So favelados are subjects being researched, which is a rather dehumanizing way to approach people. It also means that I am supposed to maintain a certain distance from favela populations so that my understanding of issues is not "biased."
My struggle is how I am supposed to live up to an ethical standard as one truly committed to human liberation and at the same time produce academic work. I think you appreciate well the importance of approaching people with deep love and compassion, and to make human relationships and reciprocity primary in your work. Being a "researcher" makes it very hard to do this and it makes me question the utility of research at all sometimes!
What Paulo F. is saying is that people who claim to work alongside oppressed groups in their interest but then are not willing to trust these same people, to love them, and to involve themselves intimately with their lives as equals rather than as experts- this is hypocritical.
I think one can have two identities that are expressed in to different degrees under different circumstances. It doesn't have to be "either/or". While, I see the point that Freire makes, is far too dualistic in his examination of the role that "authentic commitment" entails.
There is value in scientific objectivity and what it can accomplish even within the type of research that I think you are doing. At the same time, there is value in the personal/intimate relationships that you wish to engage in with the oppressed people.
The identity that you take on within the framework of scientific objectivity, I believe provides strategic long-term solutions to problems facing the structures that are leading to "social-injustice"/"oppression". On the other hand, at the level of communion with the oppressed, that identity of yours provides solace and a sense of comfort (at a very micro-level) to the oppressed. Both macro/micro solutions are critical in these scenarios.
Another spin on this: there is and should be an element of "ethics" to scientific objectivity and traditional research. This may provide you with an opportunity to challenge the roles that are established or that you think are established for you as a researcher in this field. In any case, there shouldn't be a dichotomy constructed between your ethical beliefs and your role as a researcher. Ultimately these ethical beliefs originate in some form from knowledge structures that have been developed through some form of research at some level.
Furthermore, there is an ethical dilemma even within the box of your "ethical identity". Lets say you develop an intimate relationship with 1 oppressed child in the neighborhood (for the sake of argument). At some point there is expectation from this child. Is that going to "stop" you from developing intimacy with another child and another and another....
I guess my point from the last paragraph is that ultimately, you have to reflect over the fact that your identity has limitations (finiteness) (fortunately or unfortunately) and cannot explore everything all the time. There are times in your life where you will be the "initimate" person and other times when you will be "the researcher" and thats OK!
Finally, if you want to further try and make peace with this, you could engage with the "people" about your "research". Synergize the 2 seperate worlds. Talk to them at the intimate level about the ongoing research you are doing in a manner that they will understand and that might help you develop more peace with the internal conflict.
Here is a question that is partially in response to some of Ali's question. Can you love a social class or certain group of oppressed people? I've been thinking recently that really great social justice movements begin when people from a more privileged class run across a population of oppressed people and confront them in a spirit of love. That is, they refuse to turn away from the social strata on whose behalf they are fighting until they have accomplished some goal of 'liberation'. (There is a passage in the gospel that talks about how you shouldn't go from house to house when you preach, but you should stay in one house until your job is done.)
Contra Ali, I don't necessarily think that you need to be involved in a kind of personal and intimate relationship that mirrors the relations you have with family/friends. Actually I would even argue that this might betray approaching the people you are fighting for with a genuine attitude of love. Example, if your mother were dying of heart attack you would run and get a doctor as opposed to sitting and trying to relate to her pain.
In short, I think Ali is right to say that the dualism that you represented doesn't have to exist because 'research' can aid you in your struggle to confront a people in a spirit of love. But, I would say that 'love' doesn't have to be the kind of intimately personal relationship that would be impossible to sustain with a huge number of people.
Post a Comment