Kent Sandstrom

CONFRONTING DEADLY DISEASE: The Drama of Identity Construction Among Gay Men With AIDS

Based on data from an interview study of 19 gay men with AIDS-related diagnoses, this article considers how persons with AIDS (PWAs) construct and negotiate the meaning of their illness. Given the stigma and liminality associated with their condition, PWAs typically experience a variety of problematic emotional and social reactions. In an effort to counteract the dilemmas evoked by these reactions, they engage in various types of identity management, including defensive strategies which allow them to avoid potentially threatening interactions and forms of embracement which enable them to affirm an AIDS-related identity and to integrate it with other valued aspects of self. The interview data suggest that PWAs are increasingly likely to engage in embracement as the illness progresses and as they become more extensively involved in PWA support networks. These networks provide resources, affiliations, and ideologies which facilitate the construction of more vitalizing identities.

Ideology in action: a pragmatic approach to a contested concept

3) ideologies are presented at such times and in such ways as to enhance the public impression (and justify the claims and resources) of presenters and/or adherents; ideological enactment is fundamentally dramaturgical and interactional; and 4) ideologies are linked to groups and to the relationships between groups, which in turn depend on a set of resources in order to enact ideologies effectively. Ideologies are symbolic, affective, behavioral, and relational. In focusing on these themes, we avoid some overabstract conceptions of ideology that are endemic in social scientific literature. Instead we emphasize how ideologies can be linked to lived experience and to social interaction-a microsociological grounding of ideology. To understand the dynamics of ideology we examine ideologies about the environment, drawing from an ethnographic investigation of amateur mushroom collectors.

Studying Each Other: On Agency, Constraint, and Positionality in the Field

Can we ever fully prepare ourselves for the fieldwork moments in which our pre-conceived interests, ideas, and questions meet the complex realities of our subjects’ lives? In “The Feminist Ethnographer’s Dilemma,” Orit Avishai, Lynne Gerber, and Jennifer Randles (2013a) challenge feminist ethnographers to discuss our reflexive practices when fieldwork realities conflict with our personal political goals. All three authors conducted fieldwork in what they consider “conservative social spaces.” These spaces included a study of one Orthodox Jewish community’s religious practices around female menstruation, an ex-gay ministry, and a state-sponsored marriage promotion program. In each context, individuals confronted social forces feminist analyses typically cast as regressive, normative, and regulatory. Indeed, on some basic level, these three field sites engage three of the most hotly contested zones of gendered life: women’s reproduction, sexuality, and the marital family. Each author found that her fieldwork encounters forced her to reflect on her own preexisting assumptions and the distance between her politics and those of her subjects. Each author found herself developing a far more complex intellectual and political relationship to the issues she studied than anticipated. Thus, Avishai, Gerber, and Randles (2013a, 397) suggest that all feminist researchers engage in what they term “institutional reflexivity”: sustained reflection on the “institutional conditions under which feminist knowledge is

Feminist Ethnography: Critique, Conflict, and Ambivalent Observance

A mentor once remarked that I seem committed in my scholarship to telling well-intentioned, admirable, left-leaning people that they do not have things quite right. While the characterization initially took me aback—was I really so contentious?—I both recognize the truth in it and have come to understand that commitment as a peculiarly feminist one. Feminist activists and scholars are routinely in conflict with one another, even as we share aims, convictions, and commitments. Our conflicts help to generate, direct, and amend our concerted movements toward intellectual insight and social change. As Judith Taylor notes in her study of feminists’ accounts of conflict in memoir, even pained recollections of conflict suggest a hope for something else, an insistent sense that things could and should be otherwise (Taylor 2008, 2009). Taylor asserts, “feminists see the creation of a new ethics of social relations among women as a central movement goal” (2009, 127). We try both not to avoid conflict and to do conflict well. The sexuality education debate was remarkably contentious in the late 1990s when I began work on Risky Lessons: Sex Education and Social Inequality (2008), an ethnographic study of sexuality education debates and classroom practice in North Carolina. During my eighteen months of fieldwork, advocates of comprehensive sexuality education shared resources and

Diversifying Feminist Ethnographers’ Dilemmas and Solutions

Avishai, Gerber, and Randles (2013a, 394) describe the feminist dilemma as arising when established “feminist analytic frameworks clash with observations.” All three felt this dilemma when conducting research on groups commonly thought to be “conservative” or “nonfeminist.” They felt unable to reconcile what they imagined was the feminist imperative to privilege the voice of participants with their stated feminist political commitments. In spite of their expectations of male dominance and support of a patriarchal system in the field, they interpreted some of their observations as reflecting feminist ideals. However, they were uncomfortable drawing such conclusions, as they felt pressure to conform to an institutionalized orthodoxy of feminist thought. As self-identified feminists, they worried how other feminists would evaluate their work. To help better navigate this dilemma, the authors encourage “institutional reflexivity,” or critical reflection of how feminist theoretical and methodological orthodoxies “constrain and enable interpretations of the world.” They also encourage feminists to privilege their analytic interpretations over their political projects when this dilemma arises. By introducing the notions of “the feminist dilemma” and “institutional reflexivity,” the authors provide a language to interrogate not only the issues

Toward a Feminist Ethnography of Feminist Ethnography: A Response

In “The Feminist Ethnographer’s Dilemma: Reconciling Progressive Research Agendas with Fieldwork Realities,” we reflected on methodological tensions we each experienced when our feminist theoretical frameworks did not adequately explain what we observed and heard in the field.1 Our fieldwork consisted of multiyear ethnographic studies of three conservative, seemingly nonfeminist social spaces: orthodox Jewish women’s practices of menstrual purity, evangelical ex-gay ministries, and a state-sponsored marriage education program. In identifying this shared tension, we argued that feminism2 can operate as a blinder when our feminist political commitments to progressive social change—particularly the eradication of gender inequality—constrain our ability to analyze our data adequately and accurately. To address this tension, we advocated for institutional reflexivity, a supraindividual reflexive practice focused on interrogating the political and intellectual commitments learned through feminist ethnographic training that inform our fieldwork and analysis. Since we began writing about the feminist ethnographer’s dilemma in 2009, we have had the privilege of sharing our work in a variety of academic

What is the Truth of Death and Dying? Reflections on Fulton, Foucault, and Finitude

This article highlights Michel Foucaults neglected insights regarding the social and discursive construction of death in contemporary Western societies. It also describes the limitations of Foucaults views, pointing out some of the key dimensions of death, dying, and resistance he overlooks because he downplays the agency exercised by human beings. The article concludes with a discussion of how and why Foucaults analyses need the corrective offered by Robert Fultons work. Fulton recognizes and emphasizes the human capacity for agency, meaning making, and resistance, particularly in addressing the “truth” of death and dying.

Introduction to the Special Issue Grappling with “The Feminist Ethnographer’s Dilemma”

This special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (JCE) focuses on themes that have central relevance to feminist ethnographers. In many respects, JCE is long overdue in publishing a special issue on feminist ethnography. While the journal is now more than forty years old, it has not yet featured an article or special issue that concentrates exclusively on what it means to engage in this important form of contemporary ethnography. In making this point, we do not mean to imply that JCE has failed to embrace feminist sensibilities or concerns. The journal has published ethnographic research by feminist scholars throughout much of its history. It has also taken on a stronger feminist flavor in recent years, as illustrated by the increased presence of articles informed by feminist insights as well as the publication of a special issue highlighting the methodological complexities experienced by several prominent feminist ethnographers (Chapkis 2010; GonzálezLópez 2010; Hondagneu-Sotelo 2010; Jenness 2010; O’Brien 2010; Stein 2010). Yet, while taking a feminist turn, JCE has lagged behind in addressing questions that have significance for feminist ethnographers. These questions include: What does it mean to do feminist ethnography? How is this form of ethnography similar to and different from other ethnographic approaches,

Book Review: Lessons of Empire

lost on readers who are unfamiliar with the basic world systems perspective. The book will likely work best not as a stand-alone piece but rather alongside a basic introduction to world systems analysis. Wallerstein’s (2004) own introduction would serve as an excellent companion volume. Second, while Wallerstein draws connections between contemporary and historical versions of universalist doctrines, the bulk of his discussion remains historical. The average Western student, heavily steeped in European universalist assumptions at the outset, will not necessarily be able to see the myriad of ways that the historical is manifested in its present forms. But rather than presenting a problem, this latter point provides an opportunity for enriching the student experience. In the introduction Wallerstein suggests that if one reads “...any speech of George W. Bush or Tony Blair...or any of their many acolytes” (p. xiv) one will find the basic universalist themes over and over again. He does not present any of this in detail, which provides an opportunity for sending students out into the world of political, economic, and cultural discussions to identify the recurring themes for themselves. This ability is, after all, one of the most important goals of the entire exercise. This sort of strategy will also open up the floor to fruitful debate regarding the broad claims of the book. While one of Wallerstein’s strengths is vast historical scope and vision, the brevity of this exposition leaves much open in the argument. For example, if we take this as a work of intellectual history, we find a highly oversimplified model of change in which different ways of thinking evolve for no other reason than to provide justification for the world system. For example, Orientalism is presented as having arisen simply because the civilizations of Asia were powerful enough to provide resistance to European domination. This kind of oversimplification smacks of a desire to mold history to fit neatly into a world systems framework rather than vice versa. The same occurs with the discussion of the rise of science, wherein the reader is led to believe that the entire reason for a philosophy of science that draws a sharp fact/value distinction is the need to continue Western political and economic dominance. The skeptical reader being introduced to these ideas will find much to question and critique. Another major discussion point lies in the most fundamental premise. At root, Wallerstein presents a claim that most everything of serious importance in human affairs over the past 500 years has been shaped by the needs and activities of the world system dominated by EuroAmericans. Furthermore, the line of historical change wrought by the world system has not been good—as evidenced, for example, by extreme disparities in power and wealth. Thus, the problem is the world system itself, along with the ideas that justify its continued existence. While much of the political left is already on board with the general claims (though not all of the particulars), much of the political right continues to hold the line on universalist assumptions. Pointing out some aspects of the history of these assumptions does not actually challenge their basis. In other words, while the book obviously assumes that European-style modernization is particularistic and plainly bad for much of the globe, there is no compelling argument given as to why anyone needs to accept this assumption. There are plenty of alternatives that continue to tell the story of the last 500 years as a story of progress, albeit uneven and slow progress in certain times and places. Assuming a largely Western student body as the target audience for the book, one can expect a very large range of reaction to the content, including outright rejection and continued acceptance of the basic themes of European universalism. On total balance, European Universalism provides a great teaching tool. Its explicit focus on the most subtle and elusive forms of social power makes it an important addition to existing resources for teaching and stimulating discussion about our current global situation. It represents much that is valuable about Wallerstein in compact and easily digestible form, and even the weaker points of the book provide valuable teaching opportunities.