Expressions of Ethnography: Novel Approaches to Qualitative Methods

3. Musings on Critical Ethnography, Meanings, and Symbolic Violence

CHAPTER 3 Musings on Critical Ethnography, Meanings, and Symbolic Violence JIM THOMAS In the past decade, critical ethnography has moved from the periphery of scholarly attention to the forefront, spreading from the traditional social sciences into other disciplines, such as education, business, and nursing. However, the emergence of the perspective from the shadows of marginalization and the use by a broader range of scholars has created a rather variegated mosaic that often clouds the fundamental precepts shared by practitioners. This too often results in scholars labeling any form of cultural criticism as “critical ethnography.” Fortunately , volumes such as this one provide the opportunity for researchers to share and compare their diverse views as a way of illustrating their common themes of social critique in order to distinguish critique from simply criticism. Here, I summarize a few core themes of critical ethnography and illustrate one (of many) ways it can be applied to address the symbolic violence of conventional research. An Overview of Ethnographic Critique To call critical ethnography “conventional ethnography with an attitude” is too glib (Thomas, 1992), and reducing it simply to social criticism distorts and oversimplifies the critical ethnographic project. At its simplest, critical ethnography is a way of applying a subversive world view to more conventional narratives of cultural inquiry. It does not necessarily stand in opposition to conventional ethnography, or even to conventional social science. Rather, it offers a more reflective style of thinking about the relationship between knowledge, society, and freedom from unnecessary social domination. 45 Recognizing that power relations and knowledge are interconnected, critical ethnography challenges the conventional ideological images inherent in all research by investigating the possibility of alternative meanings. This does not necessarily require a rejection of conventional or “common sense” meanings. But, it does demand that the researcher locate the meaning of events within the context of asymmetrical power relations. What distinguishes critical ethnography from the other kind is not so much an act of criticism, but an act of critique. Criticism, a complaint we make when our eggs are undercooked, generally connotes dissatisfaction with a given state of affairs, but does not necessarily carry with it an obligation to dig beneath surface appearances and challenge them. Critique, by contrast, assesses “how things are” with an added premise that “things could be better” if we examine the underlying sources of conditions, including the values on which our complaints are based. Unlike criticism, critique is iterative, moving back and forth between examining the assumptions and foundations of how things are, how they got that way, how things might be changed, and why we should care in the first place. That is, critique proceeds simultaneously from the three components of epistemological and ontological reflexivity, empirical inquiry, and action. While these three components may not be, and rarely can be, elaborated in the narrative of every individual study, they remain the fundamental tasks that guide the critical inquiry process. The Roots of Critique Critical ethnography is not a theory, because it does not, in itself, generate a set of testable propositions or law-like statements. Rather, it is a perspective that provides fundamental images, metaphors, and understandings about our social world. It also provides value premises around which to ask questions and guide transformative action. It is a methodology that “strives to unmask hegemony and address oppressive forces” (Crotty, 1998, p. 12). Borrowing from John Dewey’s (1933, p. 9) conception of reflective thought, critical ethnography builds on “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends.” Yet, if critical ethnography is to be more than a reflection of the ethnographer’s conscience or claims, then some conceptual unity must be placed upon it. For some, this unity remains ideological, guided by Marxian thought to justify the label of “critical.” For others, a broader conception of unity, more humanist than Marxist, binds the variations. However, demand for ideological unity subverts the central project. Insistence on “correct” political thinking dissolves critique into a narrow mode of inquiry that limits thought and diminishes possibilities for action. By proffering critique rather than 46 Jim Thomas ideology as the primary unifying principle, we find it easier to identify other approaches that share the critical enterprise. Social critique, by definition, is radical. Borrowed from the Greeks (Kriticos , to judge) by the Romans, the Latin term criticus...