Ellis, C. S. & Bochner, A. P. (2006). ‘Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography: An Autopsy’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 429-449.

I found myself having a small version of the experience Bochner describes, it was hard to read the article at first. The reportage style of the writing, the illusion of inclusion into a private conversation, made for a voyeuristic experience. Although it made me feel a boundary of privacy may be crossed or opened up, it also made the personal connection I felt to the article content stronger, as an illustration of Bochner’s theme around:

“Our enthusiasm for autoethnography was instigated by a desire to move ethnography away from the gaze of the distanced and detached observer and toward the embrace of intimate involvement, engagement, and embodied participation. I think it was Victor Turner (1986) who used the terms ‘coactivity’ and ‘co-performance’ to refer to a characteristically different connection between ethnographers and the people in the communities they study.”

Autoethnography is the topic of this writing, but it’s position is within observational mode. There is a duplicity within the persona of this writing, the fictionalisation of reality, and the layering of the observer mode of the reader with the confidential and casual. I found this uncomfortable to read, and perhaps this was the aim of the author. However, there is a responsibility of ethnography to include other types of citations so they don’t feel manipulated. Within this article I felt there were more questions raised than openly discussed, around the sharing of information and the performance of imparting that information. Is this her remembrance? How much editing versus transcript is within the finished article…do they really talk like this? Are we being manipulated?

Overall, the adoption of this semi-fictionalised performed version of retelling a conversation struck a jarring note for me, and led to a wider debate in class on the role of the reader and the author, than the content which the written article aimed to discuss. In this, it was a successful result to evoke discussion. However, in attempting to evoke empathy through this conversational retelling of information, it created a mixed response of empathy and aversion.