As an analytic philosopher in a highly interdisciplinary community, I am always asked about my research. Questions like, "What methodology do I use?" “Where am I conducting my fieldwork?” and “Am I a qualitative or quantitative researcher?” and I always answer, “My methodology is argumentation, reading, and writing; my fieldwork is books and journals, and I am maybe a qualitative-ish researcher. This summer, with the support of the ICGC pre-dissertation fellowship, I had the chance to expand my fieldwork from philosophy books and journals to books and journals in other disciplines.
A typical day in my *field* research may not be as exciting as visiting physical sites, interviewing groups of people, or doing ethnographic work. It was more modest than that. I usually wake up, make coffee, and start reading until I can no longer read. Write as much as my courage allows me to. Then, I take a break, have more coffee, and then search libraries for relevant sources; I nap or go for a walk, then end the day with more reading. I must confess some days were spent thinking or contemplating more than reading.
The main question of my research rests on an assumption: in our day-to-day conversations, we follow certain conversational norms. Some of these norms can lead to silencing. I am interested in examples of utterances like “You are too liberal for a Muslim woman” or “your English is so good for a non-native speaker.” I intend to argue that such utterances introduce stereotypes into conversations in a way that silences those being referred to by such utterances. Using philosophy literature, I can explain and argue for my assumption that such utterances silence. However, I needed to expand beyond philosophy to address how to resist such utterances.
I spent my summer exploring literature from performance studies, communication theories, and other relevant disciplines. I had the most luck in discovering literature on speech acts, social scripts theory, and counter-narratives. However, a venue of research I didn’t expect, yet found very informative, was the literature on interrogation and confessions. Reading about the ways by which prisoners would resist confession, either because they are forced to confess wrongfully or because, in their confession, they might implicate others, revealed a new way of thinking about “conversations”.
I still have a long way to go. One of my biggest breakthroughs this summer was realizing that acting in a counter-normative way, or going against an assumed social script, can be effective in facing the kinds of silences I am interested in. I still need to think through it a lot. Still, the most challenging part will be bridging the gap between the abstract theorizing I usually appeal to in philosophy and the more concrete real examples other disciplines theorize over. A task that may be challenging but not impossible. As I have engaged with the interdisciplinary community ICGC created, I have gained different ways to navigate my expanded “fieldwork,” so I am sure I will succeed in bridging such a gap in my writing.