Vesna Janković

Croatian

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia

Forum, Revija za sociologiju 40[39] (2009), 3-4: 279–288284nice što ju je napisao muškarac. Nekri-tičko preuzimanje antiandrocentričnog diskursa pridonijelo je, naime, tome da se knjiga – iako se bavi muško-ženskim odnosima – manje spominje i citira u feminističkoj literaturi, nego što bi to bio slučaj da ju je napisala žena.Inga Tomić-KoludrovićOdjel za sociologiju, Sveučilište u Zadru / Department of Sociology, University of ZadarZa sociologiju inspiriranu AnimomJedno od pitanja koje M. Petrić apo-strofira u svom kritičkom osvrtu (Revi-ja za sociologiju, 39[40], 1-2) na raz-govor povodom drugog izdanja knjige V. Katunarića Ženski eros i civilizacija smrti, jest i ono o odnosu sociologije i feminizma. Iako bi odgovor na njega (uostalom kao i na mnoga druga pitanja otvorena te večeri) zahtijevao opsežno istraživanje, članak »Analyzing Anal-ytic Autoethnography« (Ellis i Boch-ner, 2006) koji sam nedavno pročitala potaknuo me da zabilježim neka pro-mišljanja.Iako feminizam u formi kolegija poput Sociologije roda, Feminističkih teorija i sl. posljednjih godina prona-lazi svoj put u studijske programe so-ciologije na našim sveučilištima, a u stručnim je časopisima otvorena tema feminističke epistemologije, nadaje se pitanje koliko je doista feministička kritika znanosti utjecala na epistemo-loški subjekt domaće sociologije? Koli-ko smo se odmaknuli od tradicionalne, stance that it was written by a man. Namely, non-critical acceptance of the anti-androcen-tric position contributed to the fact that this book – although it deals with male-female re-lations – was less often mentioned and cited in feminist literature than would have been the case if it had been written by a woman.For Sociology Inspired by AnimaOne of the questions emphasized by M. Petrić in his critical review (Revija za so-ciologiju, 39[40], 1-2) of the discussion about the second release of V. Katunarić book Women’s Eros and the Civilization of Death is the question about the relation-ship between sociology and feminism. Even though the proper answer would demand comprehensive research – as would be the case with answers to many other questions raised that evening – the article “Analyz-ing Analytic Autoethnography” (Ellis and Bochner, 2006), which I have recently read, inspired me to note some thoughts on the topic.Feminism has paved its way into the study programmes of sociology at our uni-versities within the form of courses such as the Sociology of Gender, or Feminist Theories. We can read also about feminist epistemology in scientific journals, but the question remains: how much has the femi-nist critique of science influenced the epis-temological subject of Croatian sociology? How much have we moved away from the traditional, modernist paradigm based on  285 Forum, Revija za sociologiju 40[39] (2009), 3-4: 279–288modernističke paradigme koja počiva na pogledu distanciranoga, »objektiv-noga«, »neutralnog« promatrača, koji iz božanske perspektive teži Istini? Istini shvaćenoj kao konačan opis, kao anali-tička izjava o svijetu kakav jest s onu stranu višestrukih posredovanja jezika i kulture. Istini iskazanoj generaliza-cijama koje zaustavljaju, zamrzavaju i mijenjaju kontekst društvenih procesa. Istini iskazanoj u teoriji kao impersonal-noj apstrakciji kojoj je svrha razvijanje univerzalnog »aršina« primjenjivog na sve posebne slučajeve. A upravo tako shvaćena teorija predmet je (ne samo) feminističke kritike, koja takvoj »muš-koj paradigmi« suprotstavlja persona-liziranu i kontekstualiziranu spoznaju karakterističnu za žensku socijalizaciju (Blair, Brown i Baxter, 1994: 389).I u razvijenim zemljama s duljom sociološkom tradicijom trebalo je vre-mena da se prepozna transformativni potencijal feminizma i da se dogo-di neka vrsta epistemološkog gender mainstreaminga. Umjesto odricanja »znanstvenosti« feminističkom diskur-su, posljednjih godina dolazi do ra-zvoja novih istraživačkih praksi, poput sociološkog narativa ili autoetnografije, praksi koje uključuju neke od smjernica konceptualiziranih u feminističkoj teo-riji. Postavljajući pitanja: »Gdje je živo iskustvo pojedinaca koje se istražuje? Što s kontekstom, situiranošću istraži-vanih fenomena? Gdje je utjelovljeni, živi istraživač?«, feministice smjeraju prevladavanju dihotomije znanstvenog i osobnog, nastojeći protkivanjem au-tonaracije i kritičke argumentacije doći do sintetičke artikulacije osobnog i teo-rijskog (Burnier, 2006: 413).Rezultat je tog procesa istraživač-ka metodologija »dizajnirana da bude the perspective of the distanced, “objec-tive”, “neutral” observer, whose goal is to reach the Truth as it is seen from God’s view? The Truth here is conceived as the definitive description, as the analytical statement about the world as it is outside the multiple intercessions of language and culture. The Truth is expressed in generali-zations, which halt, freeze, and change the context of social processes. The Truth is expressed in theory as impersonal abstrac-tion, whose aim is to develop a universal “yardstick” that can be applied to particu-lar cases. The theory conceived in this way is precisely the subject of (not only) the feminist critique, which denotes it as part of the “male paradigm”. Opposed to it, feminists point out the personalized and contextualized knowledge typical for fe-male socialization (Blair, Brown and Bax-ter, 1994: 389).Even the scientific community in more developed countries, with a longer tradition of social sciences, needed some time to rec-ognize the transformative potential of femi-nist theory, and for some sort of epistemo-logical gender mainstreaming to take place. During the last several years, instead of denial of the scientific character of feminist discourse, we can find the development of new research practices, such as sociological narrative or autoethnography, which incor-porate some of the guidelines conceptual-ized within feminist theory. By including questions such as: “Where is the living ex-perience of the individuals in the research? What about the context of researched phe-nomena? Where is the flesh and blood scholar in the work?” feminists are aiming to overrule the existing dichotomy between the scientific and the personal. They are trying to reach synthetic articulation of the personal and theoretical by weaving togeth-er autonarratives with critical argumentation (Burnier, 2006: 413).Forum, Revija za sociologiju 40[39] (2009), 3-4: 279–288286neposlušna, opasna, ranjiva, buntovna i kreativna«, koja »obuhvaća intimnu uključenost, angažman i utjelovljeno sudjelovanje«, koja »pokazuje višegla-sje i mnogostrukost perspektiva« otkri-vajući »uznemirujuća značenja« (Ellis i Bochner, 2006). Dok tradicionalna analiza počiva na prenošenju informa-cija, narativno istraživanje naglašava komunikaciju: »To je razlika između monologa i dijaloga, između zatvorene interpretacije i otvorenosti za druga/či-ja značenja, između pozicije koja ima posljednju riječ i pozicije koja nudi za-jedničku platformu« (Ellis i Bochner, 2006: 438).Uključivanje impulsa feminističke teorije ima za rezultat i pomak u znan-stvenim ciljevima. Pridavanjem znan-stvene vrijednosti poziciji marginalnosti, feministička kritika znanosti nije otvo-rila vrata samo »ženskoj« perspektivi nego i glasovima ostalih diskriminira-nih skupina, naglašavajući važnost etič-ke dimenzije znanstvenog istraživanja. Svrha znanstvenog rada više nije isklju-čivo analitička, nego se želi postići da je »čitatelju stalo, da osjeća, da suosje-ća i učini nešto, djeluje. Od istraživača se traži da bude ranjiv i intiman« (Ellis i Bochner, 2006: 433). Želi se otvoriti dijalog o tome kako ljudi žive, umjesto zatvorene perspektive (kvantitativnih) analiza koje nude konačne opise svije-ta. Cilj je znanost koja mijenja svijet i ne zadržava se samo na posredovanju činjenica.Kad iz te perspektive promotrimo recentnu domaću sociološku produk-ciju, čini se da je utjecaj feminističke teorije još uvijek marginalan i izvanj-ski. Da, feminističke teorije postale su dio studijskih kurikuluma sociologije i sve je više istraživanja koja se bave The result of this process is research methodology “designed to be unruly, dan-gerous, vulnerable, rebellious, and creative”; methodology which “embrace[s] intimate involvement, engagement, and embodied participation”; which “shows multiple voic-es and positions”; which reveals “unsettled meanings” (Ellis and Bochner, 2006). While traditional analysis is based on transferring the information, the narrative inquiry em-phasizes the communication: “It’s the dif-ference between monologue and dialogue, between closing down interpretation and staying open to other meanings, between having the last word and sharing the plat-form” (Ellis and Bochner, 2006: 438).Incorporation of the impulses origi-nated by feminist theory resulted in change of scientific goals as well. By recognizing the scholarly value of the marginal social position, feminist critics of science have opened the door not just to the “feminine” perspective, but also to the voices of other repressed social groups. In this way, the ethical dimension of the scientific research became emphasized. The goal of the sci-ence is no longer merely the analysis, rath-er the scientist wants “the reader to care, to feel, to empathize, and to do something, to act. It needs the researcher to be vulnera-ble and intimate” (Ellis and Bochner, 2006: 433). The aim is to open up the dialogue about how people live, instead of achiev-ing the closed perspective of (quantitative) analysis and its definitive description of the world. The aim is science which is chang-ing the world, instead of mere transference of data.When we observe recent Croatian sociological production having the above-mentioned perspective in mind, it seems that the influence of feminist theory is still marginal and shallow. Admittedly, feminist theories are part of the university curricula, and there is more research on the social po- 287 Forum, Revija za sociologiju 40[39] (2009), 3-4: 279–288društvenim položajem žena. Podatci dobiveni tim istraživanjima nedvojbeno su bitni za uvid u stanje rodnih odnosa u hrvatskom društvu. No, glavnina tih istraživanja služi se starom, kvantitativ-nom, apstrahirajućom i generaliziraju-ćom metodologijom. Naznake novoga mogu se naći tek izvan matice akadem-ske produkcije, poput npr. istraživačkog projekta i knjige Aktivistkinje, Centra za ženske studije u Zagrebu.Ako u tražilicu na Hrčku, portalu hrvatskih znanstvenih časopisa (http://hrcak.srce.hr, posjećeno 20. listopada 2009.), unesete pojam »feminizam« – izlistat će se točno 22 članka, od kojih je deset njih objavljeno u sociološkim časopisima (a čak četiri od deset u Dis-krepanciji – studentskom časopisu, što je činjenica koja pobuđuje nadu). Nadu ulijeva i činjenica da tri od deset so-cioloških članaka potpisuju muškarci. Iako te šture brojke ne pokazuju stvar-ni odnos domaće sociologije i feminiz-ma, pitam se hoću li ikada u nekom od časopisa pročitati rečenicu poput ove: »Ja, kao žena i feministica, smatram važnim ne izgubiti iz vida političnost autoetnografije. Analize i teoretiziranje koje nalazimo na stranicama društve-noznanstvenih časopisa služe očuvanju profesionalne elite koja svjesno ili ne-svjesno dijeli svijet na one koji vide svjetlo i one u mraku. Autoetnografija potkopava norme pisanja koje proizvo-de hijerarhiju i podjele« (Ellis i Boch-ner, 2006: 436).Čini mi se da će proći još vremena dok se rastjelovljeni, autoritativni, pro-suđujući, akademski glas domaće soci-ologije otvori prema transformativnom iskustvu (i poduci) vlastite Anime.sition of women in Croatian society. Data thus collected are undisputedly important for a better insight into local gender af-fairs. But, the majority of this research is conducted by old, quantitative, abstract, and generalizing methodology. A new perspec-tive can be found only on the margins of academic production, as it is with the re-search project and the book Activists, pro-duced by the Centre for Women’s Studies, Zagreb.If you enter the word “feminism” in the Hrčak search engine, the portal of the scientific journals of Croatia (http://hrcak.srce.hr, visited on 20 October 2009), you will get exactly 22 articles, 10 of which have been published in sociological jour-nals (four of them in Diskrepancija – a student journal, the fact which offers some hope). Hope is also offered by the fact that three of the ten sociological articles are written by men. Of course, these few numbers are not representative of the re-lationship between Croatian sociology and feminism, but I still wonder if I will ever read sentences like the following in some Croatian scientific journal: “As a woman and a feminist, I think it’s important not to lose sight of the politics of autoethnogra-phy. Analysis and theorizing on the pages of social science journals is the preserve of an elite class of professionals who wit-tingly or unwittingly divide the world into those who see the light and those kept in the dark. Autoethnography helps undercut conventions of writing that foster hierarchy and division” (Ellis and Bochner, 2006: 436).It seems that it will take more time before the disembodied, authoritative, judg-mental, academic voice of Croatian sociol-ogy opens up for the transformative experi-ence (and lesson) of its own Anima.Forum, Revija za sociologiju 40[39] (2009), 3-4: 279–288288LITERATURA / REFERENCESBlair, Carole, Brown, Julie R. & Bax-ter, Leslie A. (1994). »Disciplining the Feminine«, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80 (4): 383–409.Burnier, DeLysa (2006). »Encounters With the Self in Social Science Re-search«, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35 (4): 410–418.Ellis, Carolyn S. & Bochner, Arthur P. (2006). »Analyzing Analytic Au-toethnography: An Autopsy«, Jour-nal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35 (4): 429–449.Vesna JankovićKatedra za sociologiju, Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje, Zagreb / Department of Sociology,Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb

For Sociology Inspired by Anima

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia