- Editorial Introduction
[End Page 683]
Two-and-one-half years ago, Journal of the Southwest (54, 1, Spring 2012) published a special issue on the pottery-making traditions of Mata Ortiz, Chihuahua, Mexico. “Forgotten Tributaries of the Palanganas: Untold Stories from Marta Ortiz” was edited by Jim Hills, and included articles across a broad spectrum of Mata Ortiz life and production, including interviews with potters, photo essays, discussion of the social life of the village, analyses of art and craft as practiced over decades. It was a landmark issue on a significant place and its meaning. Central to the issue was a section dedicated to “New Perspectives” on the phenomenon of Mata Ortiz, and at the heart of that section was Jim Hills’ 78-page essay, “Reconstructing a Miracle: New Perspectives on Mata Ortiz Pottery Making.” Publication of this article ignited a storm. A group of American residents of Mata Ortiz or Americans with deep personal and professional ties to the village and its craft production made their displeasure with Hills’ revisionist history of the beginnings of modern Mata Ortiz pottery-making plain. Besides email and letters to me personally, as editor of the journal, there was an orchestrated letter campaign to various officials at the University of Arizona, our academic home, including to our college dean and the president of the University. There were also, I hasten to add, positive – indeed, glowing – reviews and responses sent to me. I responded at length to a number of the protestors, who often called for us to retract the publication (after admonishing us that it should not have been published at all, despite normal peer review); usually the critical letters focused on the putative lack of objectivity in Hills’ piece, and this was something I took particular pains to address. I quote from one of my responses:
“Jim’s piece makes real claims -- but he does not claim to have spoken the final word; instead, as his publisher, Jim’s effort opens a conversation and it is a powerful opening that is the essence of scholarship. You state a concern with ‘objectivity’, implying that this issue (and Jim’s essay in particular) fail on this score. Again, while you do not support this charge, you also do not specify what “objective” might mean in this case. The term, of course, is loaded, and there exist literally shelves of materials accumulated over the last 150 years of social science research contesting, analyzing, and plain worrying about that concept. A useful way to think about “objectivity” in human affairs (as opposed to observing molecules through a microscope) is to think in terms of transparency, openness, and intersubjectivity and to remember that in the human sciences the “theorist” is a part of that which he theorizes: we do not stand outside [End Page 684] of the history we seek to understand; rather we of necessity inform and belong to that history – such are our limitations and Jim Hills never transgresses those limitations – indeed he respects them, as do I and as does JSW.”
The key, of course, is the notion of dialogue or conversation. In another correspondence I wrote:
“Jim has written a new narrative history of aspects of Mata Ortiz. He, admittedly, does not pull punches, nor should he. It counters a prevailing, dominant narrative that has held sway for several decades. No doubt this version may be challenged and further developed – especially since it seems that Jim’s essay has broken through an insularity that is a working danger of small communities of knowledge – and this is a good thing. Ultimately it will be nice to hear the voices – directly – of the Mexicans themselves and how they might construct the narration of their recent history. All of this is the normal intellectual development of the history of time and place, and it shocks me that this seems to be unacceptable to some. It goes without saying – or should – that the way to respond to new narratives to which you might disagree is with your own carefully researched, thought out article – that is reviewed, refereed, and published in the scholarly literature. Indeed, in all of the social sciences, this is...