Asian Canadian Writing Beyond Autoethnography

1 The Politics of the Beyond: 43 Theses on Autoethnography and Complicity

31 Before I even begin to follow in fact a tortuous itinerary, here is the thesis, in direct and broadly simple terms, that I am submitting to you for discussion . It will be distributed among a series of propositions. In truth, it will be less a thesis, or even a hypothesis, than a declarative engagement, an appeal in the form of a profession of faith: faith in the university and, within the university , faith in the Humanities of tomorrow. —Jacques Derrida1 1. It is a commonplace thesis that the critical act is nearly always complicit with its object of criticism. “Beyond Autoethnography,” my subject here—that is, how or why “recent cultural productions” have “moved beyond the politics of identity, beyond what Françoise Lionnet has termed ‘autoethnography,’ or ethnographic autobiography”—resonates with complicity.2 Two premises are implicit in this statement—at least as I hear it: that “ethnic, multicultural, and minority writers in Canada”3 have so far written in an autoethnographic manner; and that critical discourse has displayed a tendency to read these writers as autoethnographers, irrespective of whether or not they have written directly in this mode.4 Even though the paratactic structure of this phrase implies that “ethnic , multicultural, and minority” literatures are distinct categories, it is not immediately apparent what the differences between them are; nor is it possible to identify readily which Canadian writers belong to each of these categories—if they are indeed as distinct as the syntax of the phrase suggests.5 [chapter one] The Politics of the Beyond 43 Theses on Autoethnography and Complicity Smaro Kamboureli For example, are Roy Kiyooka’s Mothertalk: Life Stories of Mary Kiyoshi Kiyooka and Pacific Rim Letters autoethnographies? Is Wayson Choy’s Paper Shadows: A Chinatown Childhood an “ethnic” or a “multicultural” example of autoethnography, if it is indeed that? And could we read Himani Bannerji ’s collection Returning the Gaze: Essays of Feminism, Race, and Politics, Arun Mukherjee’s Oppositional Aesthetics: Readings from a Hyphenated Space, and Roy Miki’s Redress: Inside the Japanese Canadian Call for Justice as critical instances of autoethnography? Such questions, though worthy of note, do not necessarily address the most urgent questions posed today by or about writers of the diaspora or texts like the ones I mention here. What is evident, however, is that these “ethnic, multicultural, and minority ” labels—including, of course, my preferred one, diasporic—point to a triage that derives not so much from the literature in question, but from the various entanglements and politics of critical discourse and methodology , hence the need to address the issue. 2. Autoethnography has reached its limits. “Beyond autoethnography” seems to have a deictic and spatial function, pointing to a field that lies ahead of autoethnography. I hear “beyond autoethnography,” then, as a thesis that asserts—perhaps inadvertently so—the end of autoethnography, that autoethnography has reached its limits. But as Wittgenstein says, “If someone is merely ahead of his time, it will catch him up one day.”6 So, though certainly an enticing proposition, I am less interested in seeing what lies “beyond autoethnography,” than I am in investigating how autoethnography has come about, and what it signifies . 3. Beyond implies a purposeful gesture, but it is how that shows the way. Beyond suggests a crossing over that assumes there is already some unspecified critical space awaiting us. The future tense it embodies is the kind relying on presumed knowledge, for this preposition is marked by optimism—perhaps even faith, given the function of beyond as a noun— that there is a (better?) space we can reach and inhabit as critics. In comparison, the adverb how is more modest; it doesn’t assume there is a beyond. Instead, it points to the means we can employ to explore knowledge and ways of knowing. How has an instrumentalism that is key to the critical act, fundamental to the ways and methods in which we produce knowledge. Hence the beauty of its modesty—and my having opted here to employ it as the means through which to respond to the exhortation “beyond autoethnography.” 32 Part One Theoretical Challenges and Praxis 4. Autoethnography is a compensatory gesture. This may indeed be the right time to consider moving beyond autoethnography , but there was a time when the advent of autoethnography was thought to be a radical shift, especially in the field of anthropology, signalling major methodological and ideological changes...