A few weeks ago, I was completely against generalizing a
case-study into a broader more global approach to everyone else. This is simply
because so many individual experiences are undermined in creating those generalizations,
which may or may not apply to every single situation— if at all. Now, I have
learned of a new term “strategic essentialism.” I think Spyvak coined it in the
90s and I really like how it works.
Every
researcher- at least I hope- aims to help society by bringing to new light some
type of issue that has never before been looked at or not investigated enough.
With the research performed, the participants involved, and the time consumed,
it would be unfair to everyone involved in the project if there wasn’t some
information that came out of a particular case-study, ethnography, or other
method of research because so much time and people power would have been put to
waste. After the case-study, the ground gets extremely muddy in attempting to
generalize from one specific person or phenomenon to an entire group of people
or population. At this point, and even before the study, “strategic
essentialism” comes into play for the researcher but most importantly to the
group of people involved in the project.
What a “strategic
essentialism” entails is being aware that a researcher is generalizing to be
able to conduct the research and understand a certain phenomenon or group of
people. In taking this term and applying it extreme precaution should be taken;
I cannot overemphasize how much should be considered because Spyvak has also
shown some concern for the way it has been used. For example, a researcher may
explore an ethnographic approach of a group of people in Africa within a
certain region because of similar qualities. The researcher may coin them as
indigenous or some other term but what exactly constitutes indigenous? Is this
the researcher’s Eurocentric view of what the group seems to be or is there
some other issues involved that would help him view that particular group as
indigenous? This approach should be
taken carefully because generalizing can lead to stereotyping or even
supporting racism.
Nevertheless, “strategic
essentialism” helps in conducting meaningful research that is going to be able
to help out in the global scheme of things. In trying to solve huge issues in
the world, it’s an awesome tool to use.
I think that people have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "generalizations" because it has such negative connotations in our newly globalized modern society. While I agree that generalizations can be dangerous, leading to bigotry, they are also an important way that people make sense out of things in the world. We categorize things (and even people)) to make them easier to understand, labeling "this" like "that" because they are similar and the connection between the two makes "this" easier to understand. And I think this is an intrinsic part of human nature that we may never be able to get rid of. But that's okay, we can work within these constraints by emphasizing what you discussed above: using "strategic essentialism" to remind researchers and audiences alike that although these generalizations may be true most of the time, there is an exception to every rule.
ReplyDeleteWhile I dealt with some of your work in my own post, Jose, I would like to formally respond here as well. It's definitely tricky territory when we're talking about generalization; this is especially true of cultural or racial ethnographic studies, because it can be rather easy to create stereotypes rather than composites. However, it seems to me that a lot of these potential pitfalls can be avoided. Much of the potential for "problems" relies on a researcher's inability to identify and deal with his or her own biases. To me, that's the space where oversights and poor attempts at generalization come in. I think that if we as researchers are transparent regarding biases and do our best to place our work within the context of scholarly work, we can avoid most of these issues.
ReplyDelete