Upon reading the first page, a question arose that I think I may have brought up in one of the past two classes. As we discussed Sen and how values and ideals in different countries vary, we came to the realization that it is almost impossible to avoid a bias when viewing others. Although we may be aware of this bias or try to escape from it, it is impossible to actually understand another person’s perspective. That’s why I asked how can we accurately study a country other than our own without imposing a slant in our findings? It is ironic that we use books about other countries as a source information, although their authors may not be native of that country.
Lovell admits that upon his first encounter with Genaro, he asked, “How is it possible to write a book about my people without knowing our language, without speaking Q’anjob al?’ (p. 3). Questions like Genaro’s aren’t ones that authors in the United States face very often, and Genaro’s eye-opening point is one that we should all be aware of. However, I found it ironic that the rest of the chapter was centered Genaro. Yes, I understand that Lovell was trying to make his points stronger by tying them into the life of an indigenous Guatemalan. However, I wonder if Lovell did this to give himself confidence in his work, and feel more comfortable about how he answered Genaro’s question. I feel that Lovell could have made many of his points without the use of Genaro’s life. For example, Lovell uses sentences such as, “like most Maya families, Genarios had some land…” and “Maya culture today, hover, tends to be particularly resilient in communities that, like Genaro’s, guarded their land…” etc. Maybe I’m being too critical of Lovell’s style, but it seemed like he tried to overemphasize his credibility by constantly pulling his points back to Genaro, even if it was not necessary. I just found it interesting how he chose to start the book in this fashion. How do you all feel about his opening? Do you think it was a good way to start his book, or do you feel that he had underlying motives (such as proving to both himself and the reader that he is indeed credible)?
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent and relevant insight. This is something that a lot of anthropology writers have been increasingly criticized for- building their own credibility as an author by adding other, more credible people's voices to their account, even though the overall argument, language, or purpose of the book may not have been approved by or even considered correct by its original 'native informants'. Let's talk about this in class (and the profound challenge it raises for social science researchers)