|
Claims that educational activities such as nature writing, eco-confessionals and natural history journals (Thomashow, 1996; see also, Fawcett, Bell, Russell, 2001) are disciplinary practices (see Bowerbank, 1998) are possible based on the generally unnamed and uncontested assumption, within most
post-theorizing, that humans are separate from and superior to
non-human Others Shift some basic assumptions about the communicative abilities of non-human Others, and these same activities can be read as openings to discourses of non-dominant co-existence that just might enable the writer or reader to "refigure the kind of person [she] might be" (see Haraway, 1991a, p. 3). For me, writing a natural history journal was one of the few places I had an opportunity to explore and express
How do I avoid becoming the master interpreter, and my research becoming another surveillance strategy (Lather, 2001)? I am reminded by St. Pierre and Pillow's (2000) admonition that it is important to turn a feminist poststructural analysis back on itself to examine "the functions and effects of any structure or grid of regularity that [theorists] put into place, including those poststructuralism itself might create" (p. 6). I am also contemplating Jones and Jenkins' (2008) concern that an ongoing desire for and comfort with multiple interpretations may be the privilege of those who share a common, and dominant storyline. Even as I write about (re)connection, I risk silencing the voices not able to speak in human tongues. Unless I learn their languages. |
||
(Russell, 2005), and that non-human Others have neither consciousness, intentionality nor agency in their interactions with humans. These readings do not