After reading Yurchak’s book, I was left deliberating my own paradox. I liked that he spelled out clearly in the beginning what is in his “methodological toolbox” and presented his analytical framework, but then I also came to resent that this framework was so ever-present in the text. His aim is to “investigate shifts in discursive formations”, and to do this he employs “discourse analysis, linguistic analysis and genealogical analysis” (33). After reading this, I thought-aha! Something concrete that I can use! I began to consider what other kinds of discursive formations could be analyzed with this method. Although it was refreshing to go through the book and understand the method and what the analytical framework was, by the end of the book it became repetitive. I would sink into the stories and then be bumped in the head and reminded that this was not just a story, but proving his theory. I liked that I understood what he was analyzing and how he analyzed it, but left me wanting something more at the end of the book.
His text explains how authoritative language and performative acts in late socialist society, in trying to be unchanging, actually created opportunities for change and reinterpretation. By neatly fitting all of his examples into his framework, and leaving other examples out or giving them brief mention, such as the role of dissidents or any differences in interpretation of late socialism by age, ethnicity or gender, he leaves his theoretical framework and analytical method open for more criticism. I felt like he kept proving his point throughout the text which made me want to find fault with it and question his examples.
Easily, the most potent part of Yurchak’s argument in Everything Was Forever... is his dedication to the nuances of the lived life. So much post-socialist Soviet work has focused on how non-agentive its subjects were, while this book looks at the more multifarious relationships young people had with Communism—both their clear awareness of the futile formalities and their hopeful dedication to party ideologies.
The reproduction of discourse, the supersession of the constative by the performative lays a convincing foundation for Yurchak’s assertion that there is not a clear “inside/outside,” “Soviet/Western,” divide. And most importantly, that socialism itself created the context for its own subversion. This reminds me of Tsing’s idea of “contingencies,” and investigating conditions that are because they are.
At times, I wished Yurchak had continued to look through the linguistic/semiotic lens, especially in the chapters about music, media, and cultural consumption. Something really linguistically interesting could have been explored in the fact that kids didn’t understand (or seem to care) about the meanings of western rock lyrics. And, like Diego, I felt like the application of deterritorialization was fleeting and maladroit.
It is strange to see phrases like, “evidence” and “accurate ethnographic work” in this week’s comments…..where did all these literal, positivists come from? Yurchak is clear that his object of study is very narrow: the last Soviet generation in late socialism. He isn’t primarily interested in political dissidents or those who lived under Stalinism. Do we expect ethnographers to look at all subjects, in all times? What constitutes evidence? What makes ethnographic work “accurate”?
3 Comments:
At 2:47 PM,
Kadija Ferryman said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 2:51 PM,
Kadija Ferryman said…
After reading Yurchak’s book, I was left deliberating my own paradox. I liked that he spelled out clearly in the beginning what is in his “methodological toolbox” and presented his analytical framework, but then I also came to resent that this framework was so ever-present in the text. His aim is to “investigate shifts in discursive formations”, and to do this he employs “discourse analysis, linguistic analysis and genealogical analysis” (33). After reading this, I thought-aha! Something concrete that I can use! I began to consider what other kinds of discursive formations could be analyzed with this method. Although it was refreshing to go through the book and understand the method and what the analytical framework was, by the end of the book it became repetitive. I would sink into the stories and then be bumped in the head and reminded that this was not just a story, but proving his theory. I liked that I understood what he was analyzing and how he analyzed it, but left me wanting something more at the end of the book.
His text explains how authoritative language and performative acts in late socialist society, in trying to be unchanging, actually created opportunities for change and reinterpretation. By neatly fitting all of his examples into his framework, and leaving other examples out or giving them brief mention, such as the role of dissidents or any differences in interpretation of late socialism by age, ethnicity or gender, he leaves his theoretical framework and analytical method open for more criticism. I felt like he kept proving his point throughout the text which made me want to find fault with it and question his examples.
At 3:42 PM,
amber said…
Easily, the most potent part of Yurchak’s argument in Everything Was Forever... is his dedication to the nuances of the lived life. So much post-socialist Soviet work has focused on how non-agentive its subjects were, while this book looks at the more multifarious relationships young people had with Communism—both their clear awareness of the futile formalities and their hopeful dedication to party ideologies.
The reproduction of discourse, the supersession of the constative by the performative lays a convincing foundation for Yurchak’s assertion that there is not a clear “inside/outside,” “Soviet/Western,” divide. And most importantly, that socialism itself created the context for its own subversion. This reminds me of Tsing’s idea of “contingencies,” and investigating conditions that are because they are.
At times, I wished Yurchak had continued to look through the linguistic/semiotic lens, especially in the chapters about music, media, and cultural consumption. Something really linguistically interesting could have been explored in the fact that kids didn’t understand (or seem to care) about the meanings of western rock lyrics. And, like Diego, I felt like the application of deterritorialization was fleeting and maladroit.
It is strange to see phrases like, “evidence” and “accurate ethnographic work” in this week’s comments…..where did all these literal, positivists come from? Yurchak is clear that his object of study is very narrow: the last Soviet generation in late socialism. He isn’t primarily interested in political dissidents or those who lived under Stalinism. Do we expect ethnographers to look at all subjects, in all times? What constitutes evidence? What makes ethnographic work “accurate”?
Post a Comment
<< Home