Bathmaker : Life
history and identity
In the
introduction to the book which she edits with Penelope Hartnett, Anne-Marie Bathmaker
sets out some arguments in favour of the individual telling their story of their life-as-lived and
highlighting how it conflicts with the over-arching narratives of our time.
This book chapter has been enlightening and inspiring to me since I first read
it six or seven months ago. Below is my short analysis of the chapter.
Bathmaker
articulates the idea of the “life history” as being the “life story” of a
person set within the social and historical context in which it took or is
taking place (p2). The use of narrative enquiry within life history research documents
the “complexities and contradictions” of real life. The
ambiguity is revealed and the homogeneous result that a large sample size may
produce is disturbed. Such enquiry “may call into question dominant narratives
that do not match the experience of life as lived” (p3). This in turn may “speak
truth to power” (p5).
Life history
research is also important, argues Bathmaker, because the previous trajectories
for life (class, gender, race) no longer hold true – for better or for worse.
(p3). If you tell your story, you can articulate and recognise your identity.
Individual agency is restored and there is a move away from “big narratives”
such as Marxism and feminism. However, the big narratives still impinge on an
individual’s daily life. Understanding an individual’s story in the context of
particular social structures gives a deeper illumination of both their story
and the social structures.
For me this is
very important reading as my own practice has grown from what I’ve called my
“lived experience”, which tallies very closely with Bathmaker’s description of
the “life history”. Bathmaker’s discussion illuminates further for me the
manipulation and repurposing of history that we encounter passively every day,
whether by government, media, teachers or multiple other agencies. From whose
viewpoint do we really recount history? Media/journalists? Individual
historians? Why are some voices more valid than others? The “life history”
concept seems to me to allow more validity of the individual’s voice than
simply “history”. It disrupts my tenet of the "official".
Another thought
that arises is that individual identity is complex and cannot be defined by one
theoretical perspective. The big narratives can easily become oppressive. For
example, there are some areas of feminism and socialism with which I strongly
agree, but I don’t agree with everything that each of these metanarratives
stand for. It is easy to pigeon-hole individuals on the basis of a
part-identification with a particular metanarrative, but just because it’s
easy, it’s not necessarily correct or justifiable.
No comments:
Post a Comment