The Starting Point - Embracing Multiplicities

This morning while reading Madison's (2020) latest edition on critical ethnography, she begins her chapter on methods with, "Who am I?" Starting where you are (p. 29).  Our past experiences and histories have brought us to this point in time which Madison (2020) encourages researchers to embrace as the starting point.  While this may be important to remind researchers that this is the starting point for methods, to me it is naturally the starting point.  I cannot imagine any researcher conducting a critical ethnography without acknowledging their immediate identity and the privileges that come with it in any given study.  In my case, I am constantly reminded of my identit(ies).  I visualize the insider and outsider concepts rubbing against and through each other simultaneously allowing me to bring together multiple perspectives together.  As a researcher, this is highly valuable and important as it brings nuances and enriches the data.

*Note: I obviously did not draw the maps to scale - meant for visual/conceptual purposes.

I want to extend this example from a researcher experience to some of the recent conversations I've had with friends and colleagues.  The topic of identity is at the front of Armenians mindset and perhaps even more so for a Diasporan. While being here for nearly a month now, I can no longer keep track of the number of personal conversations that involved the role of national identity and how it effects peoples' lives on a daily basis.  The immediate reaction is to assume we only have a dual-sense of identities [and perhaps the national governments once again are at fault here for reminding us that we are not allowed to have more than two national citizenships/passports].  However, I would argue we have multiple identities always at play.  Why limit how we experience life and the world with this bi-focal lens when we clearly have a wider range? Instead of feeling punished by our multiplicity of identities, I would urge us to feel humbled and embrace these layers.  I understand the challenges on a daily basis when society tries to frame us neatly into "boxes" and sure, it can be taxing emotionally and spiritually but ultimately, our multiplicity makes up all of the layers or fibers that feeds into our souls.  Why see black-white when a rainbow can offer more? 

For some people I can imagine it's hard to understand why the national or identity is an important topic of conversation.  It couldn't be more timely to turn to a recent article where Silova (2019) draws on memories and discusses the ways in which children become national(ized) within the context of the Soviet nationhood project.  Silova's (2019) study examines how individuals at times go against the national narrative or breach(ing) the nation which she defines as the following: "'breaching’ acquires a double meaning – on the one hand, it exposes the taken-forgranted, unspoken assumptions of the nation and, on the other hand, it reveals multiple meanings and experiences of the ‘nation’ in children’s everyday lives. (p. 2)" .  The experiences I discussed above may be examples where individuals feel like they are "breaching" what is expected of the prescribed Armenian national identity.  Certainly conforming maybe be more comfortable whereas breaching forces us to exist within an unknown space and embracing multiplicities requires individuals to carry a heavier burden.  

In this post, I wanted to bring together some of the ideas from the literature on researcher identity and my recent conversations about the national identity in ordinary life as a way to embrace these multiplicities.  I think it's important to begin our dialogues on identities with multiplicities just as we do as researchers with methods.

References

Madison, D. S. (2020). Critical Ethnography: Methods, Ethics, and Performance. Sage: California. 

Silova, I. (2019) Lessons in everyday nationhood: childhood memories of ‘breaching’ the nation,Children's Geographies, DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2019.1618440