Tuesday, August 11, 2020 - 6:08am
- Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object?
Frame (social theoretical questions). - Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this?
I think both at times. I have projects I focus on and some more on the side which grow more slowly over time. I have a couple of project ideas which I would like to realise at some point but don't find the time. This sometimes feels a bit like 'hopping' maybe. When I do collaborative projects, I try to put much effort in them because I feel others depend on me. - Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention.
I think probably external determinations at the moment, but not a binary. - What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it?
Drawn in usually. - Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives?
This is something I struggle with. There are so many perspectives and narratives to consider. Research is never innocent and I think having some narrative is important and strategic essentialism can help to shop with trying to unpack too much. Pointing at tensions, dialectics and complexities is an important. - Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument?
I think it depends. Sometimes I fear that not having overarching arguments makes my texts appear too neutral or distanced, but I also would like to be researcher who more explicitly takes a political stance in certain contexts. I am only at the start of my PhD and trying to figure out how to think about this boundry (?) between activism and research, particuarly also in language and writing. - Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them?
Different interpretations are super interesting. - Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what?
When I flesh it out, it usually changes. - Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking?
Both sometimes. - Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”)
It was a bit frustrating at times also because it was difficult to associate some of the categories with myself, but it gave me also some possibilities for reflexion which I enjoyed.
