EXCHANGING TRANSPARENCY FOR TRANSCENDENCY IN AUTOETHNOGRAPHY?

“We argue that in an attempt to engage the crises of representation by transgressively blurring genres and writing against the disembodied voice of objectivism, autoethnographers run the risk of simply replacing one privileged centre with another, making similarly narrow claims to truth, authority, and authenticity as objectivism:  autoethnography has exchanged transcendency for transparency…(299)

…What would happen if autoethnography were to disrupt identity, discourage identification, and refuse understanding?  If subjects, in their telling of experience, become fractured, multiply-positioned, and unreliable narrators, then autoethnography would need to forfeit authority and embrace (not merely question) epistemological failure…(303)

…Our main critique of autoethnography rests on this notion of a coherent, explanatory subject who gathers up meaning and reflexively lays bare the process of knowledge-production, as if that process is self-evident, with no confrontation of the power plays in the non-innocent game of interpretation (303).”

–  Jackson, Alecia Y. and Lisa A. Mazzei (2008)  “Experience and “I” in Autoethnography:  A Deconstruction.”  International Review of Qualitative Research, Vl. 1(3):299-317