In Dialogue: Life Writing and Narrative Inquiry
In Dialogue: Life Writing and Narrative Inquiry
复制标题
对话：生活写作和叙事探究
DOI：
10.1080/14484520903342825
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
0.4
通讯作者：
Stanley L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stanley L
本期《生活写作》特刊探讨了叙事探究与生活写作之间的相互联系。其贡献者来自广泛的跨学科背景和居住国家，并对这两个关键术语表达了各种“立场”。他们探讨的一些问题包括：应该如何讲述和书写生活的故事方式？传奇的生活和真实的生活以什么方式以及在多大程度上相互交织？过去是否可以被知晓，或者记忆只是当下的一种实践？处理文本只能解决生活的指涉问题吗？当文本包含关键的缺席和沉默时该怎么办？谁有“生活”，谁来立法？学术间/学科以何种方式涉及造成缺席和沉默，有没有出路？值得庆幸的是，过去许多学术辩论的尖锐性现在已基本上被学术礼貌所取代。但随之而来的往往是除了全面认可之外不愿表达任何其他内容，并且回避就差异和分歧进行沟通，以免引起不安或冒犯。然而，真正的文明不仅包括礼貌的礼貌，还包括体贴的良好举止。也就是说，它需要仔细思考，并对其他人所说或所写的内容做出认真的反应。对话的理念，即交换不同观点并相互（重新）考虑的正式对话或讨论的理念，很好地表达了这一点，也是本期特刊围绕的理念。对话也是特刊的贡献来源，五场对话的内容都是以“相互对话”的口头陈述形式呈现的，也引起了相当大的观众反响。 1 这些同意和不同意的想法、方法和观点之间的对话构成了本特刊的结构。他们不同的关注点在于共同的信念，即叙事是一种探究，是研究人员参与的一种分析过程，而不是一种数据。后者已成为该术语现在使用的大多数理所当然的方式，例如“我正在分析一些参与者的叙述”。然而，相比之下，其贡献者关注的是概念、程序方法和
This special issue of Life Writing explores interconnections between narrative inquiry and life writing. Its contributors come from a wide range of inter/disciplinary backgrounds and countries of residence, and express a variety of ‘positions’ regarding both of these key terms. Some of the questions they explore include: How should the storied ways in which lives are spoken and written be engaged with? In what ways and to what extent do storied lives and lived lives intermesh? Can the past be known or is memory a present-time practice only? Does working with texts only solve referentiality problems about lives? What can be done when the texts contain crucial absences and silences? Who has ‘a life’and who legislates this? In what ways are the academic inter/disciplines implicated in creating absences and silences and is there a route out? Thankfully, the cut and thrust character of much academic debate in the past has now largely been replaced with scholarly civility; but frequently accompanying this is a reluctance to express anything other than blanket approval and a shying away from communicating about differences and disagreements in case this should upset or offend. True civility, however, involves not only the politeness of courtesy, but also the good manners of consideration. That is, it requires careful and mindful thought about and an attentive responsiveness to what other people are saying or writing. The idea of dialogue, of a formal conversation or discussion in which differing viewpoints are exchanged and mutually (re) considered, expresses this well and is the idea around which this special issue has been composed. Dialogue was also the origin of the contributions that the special issue contains, for the contents of its five dialogues came into being as spoken presentations presented ‘in conversation with each other’, with considerable audience response as well. 1 These dialogical encounters between agreeing and disagreeing ideas, methodologies and perspectives structure the special issue. Overarching their different concerns is the shared conviction that narrative is a type of inquiry, an analytical process in which researchers engage, rather than being kind of data. The latter has become the largely taken-for-granted way in which the term is now used, as in ‘I’m analysing the narratives of some participants’. However, its contributors are by contrast concerned with the concepts, procedural methodologies and