Adam Russell

The Responsibility of the Writer

When I first read Pryer’s article, I lamented the fact that I did not have it as a powerful ally to back up the claims I made for the midterm.  However, the closer I read, I realized that she’s writing about crossing a line in representation that brings up ethical questions.  For much of this class we’ve talked about the role of the observer in the research process.  Essentially, when we observe, we cannot take ourselves out of the equation: we write our own presence into the analysis because it is an integral part of the experience.  Preyer expands on this idea when she writes that our personal experiences “enable the researcher to seek patterns in the complexities of everyday experience that illuminate cultural and social structures, identity formation, and lived experiences of power and possibility” (6).  According to Preyer, by acknowledging our own experiences in the research process, we create a new fiction based on our perception of truth. 

The most striking thing to note of Pryer’s article is her analysis of “constructive neglect”.  She states that when we produce text from research, we “must decide what to include in the text, and more crucially, what to leave out” (9).  This could mean delineating between the essentials and the non essentials of events, but she could be taking her idea of fictionalizing memory to a dangerous level by ultimately creating an account of something that did not happen.  When I wrote in my previous posts about the power of subjectivity, I was concerned about how it would be interpreted.  I see now that my analysis was somewhat conservative compared to Pryer’s.  I hope I’m misinterpreting her, but from what I can deduce, she believes that subjectivity should not only be embraced, but that the research should ere on the side of fiction if it proves the thesis: writers can choose to leave certain events out of an observation while embellishing others.  Of course, I realize that subjectivity is inevitable when it comes to any kind of research, but they still have an obligation to be as truthful as possible and not misrepresent people’s lives. 

In Joel’s post he wrote that

All writing should inherently create a feeling in the reader of some sort of relation, but that relation is specific to the individual reader.  That is what is so great about this paper when it comes to ethnography; that we can assume that what we say will be seen in many different ways and that is a powerful tool.”  (par. 4) 

It’s true that all writing is constituted by the relation between the reader and the writer, but the power that Joel mentions is something that deserves attention.  When we write, we are wielding a powerful weapon when it comes to representing other people’s lives and actions.  Yes, we must always understand the relation that exists between the reader and writer, but when conducting research, we must also understand the relation that exists between the writer and the subjects.  If we take too many liberties with our writing and venture outside of the subjective and into the world of fiction, we are playing with a dynamic that can cause irreparable damage to not only the actual events that transpired, but to the people we are writing about.  I realize that fictionalization is Preyer’s stance, but where do we draw the line?  When do we have an ethical obligation to pull back and try to be as truthful as possible?  Of course we cannot feed ourselves the illusion of being completely truthful and nonbiased, but that does not mean we should not strive for it while maintaining a healthy knowledge of our own biases and leanings.       

At the end of her article, Pryer writes that “fictions have tremendous power to both heal and harm” (13).  Indeed, much of what Preyer writes about is the effect that writing has on the reader and the ensuing development it often leads to in terms of self-reflection.  However, although researchers present information as entities of their own analysis, they still must keep their memories in check and stay aware of the fact that they are not creating fictitious characters out of their head, but representing people’s lives.