On ideologies of reflexivity

in Contemporary Efforts to Remake the Human Sciences. Marcus, George E. (1994). Poetics Today, 15 (3), 383-404.

Marcus finds the root of reflexive academic writing in postmodernism. In his definition, a postmodern condition is the "world of established but unstable institutions rapidly generating emergent forms of diversity" (p. 384). He argues that postmodern writing in the attempt to reveal this condition and enact it has been radical contemporary cultural criticism. Within this context, he characterizes postmodernism as the 'sign' of reflexivity, and asks how much of reflexivity should appear in ethnographic writing.

Looking at self-critical reflexivity reflected on postmodern ethnography writing, Marcus points out that reflexivity is an ideological matter rather than a methodological one. In his account, there are two types of reflexivity: Essential reflexivity is inherent in the use of language, thus no one can choose to be reflexive or not. On the other hand, derived or ideological reflexivity responds to how to deal with it strategically. However, in academic, he criticizes, the polemic of "more reflexive than thou" is predominant when one does not follow a specific set of postmodern styles of writing "messy text".

Marcus defines as the basic form of reflexivity self-critique, personal quest, subjectivity and empathy. In anthropology, he criticizes, reflexivity opened the possibility for the polyphonic text, but in reality, it reinforced the researcher's own perspective without challenging the paradigm of ethnographic research at all.

He points out that the subjectivist kind of reflexivity is more weighted in feminism, as shown the prolific autobiography in the quest for identity issues. He notes that feminist reflexivity, revolving around subjectivity and experientiality, has been discussed as the practice of positioning, such as male/female, culture/nature. Yet, he argues:

"Yet the practice of positioning can easily get stuck in a sterile form of identity politics, reducing it to a formulaic incantation at the beginning of ethnographic papers in which one boldly "comes clean" and confesses one's positioned identity (e.g., "I am a white, Jewish, middleclass, heterosexual female"). This kind of reflexive "act of location," while potentially a practice of key importance, all too often becomes a gesture that is enforced by politically correct convention." (p. 401).

Marcus hints at objective knowledge as opposed to a postmodern way of writing "messy" ethnography and practicing reflexivity.