Advertisement

Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 83–106 | Cite as

A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa

  • Nancy A. Naples
Article

Abstract

This article draws upon findings from an ethnographic study of two towns in rural Iowa to examine the adequacy of the insider/outsider distinction as a guideline for evaluating and conducting ethnographic research. Utilizing feminist standpoint and materialist feminist theories, I start with the assumption that, rather than one “insider” or “outsider” position, we all begin our work with different relationships to shifting aspects of social life and to particular knowers in the community and this contributes to numerous dimensions through which we can relate to residents in various communities. “Outsiderness” and “insiderness” are not fixed or static positions, rather they are ever-shifting and permeable social locations illustrated in this case study by the “outsider phenomenon.” Community processes that reorganize and resituate race-ethnicity, gender and class relations form some of the most salient aspects of the “outsider phenomenon.” These dynamic processes shaped our relationships with residents as ethnographic identities were repositioned by shifts in constructions of “community” that accompanied ongoing social, demographic, and political changes.

Key words

ethnography feminist standpoint methodologies materialist feminism rural community studies racialization economic and social change 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acker, J., K. Barry, and J. Esseveld. (1991). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. In M. M. Fonow and J. A. Cook (Eds.),Beyond methodology (pp. 133–153). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J. (1992). 1870s agrarian activism in Southern Illinois: Mediator between two eras.Social Science History 16(3):365–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler, P. A. and P. Adler. (1987).Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Aguilar, J. L. (1981). Insider research: An ethnography of a debate. In D. A. Messerschmidt (Ed.),Anthropologists at home in North America (pp. 133–149). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bar On, B. (1993). Marginality and epistemic privilege. In L. Alcoff and E. Potter (Eds.),Feminist epistemologies (pp. 83–100). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, M. (1980).Women's oppression today. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, H. A. (1963).Outsiders. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, P. Hill. (1990).Black feminist thought. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, P. Hill. (1991). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. In M. M. Fonow and J. A. Cook (Eds.),Beyond methodology (pp. 35–59). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DuBois, W. E. B. (1989/1903).Souls of Black folk. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenstein, Z. R. (Ed.). (1979).Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elden, M. and Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research.” In W. Foote Whyte (Ed.),Participatory Action Research (pp. 127–42). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experience.Symbolic Interaction 14(1):23–50.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, C. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 23(1):68–98.Google Scholar
  15. Fine, G. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22(3):267–294.Google Scholar
  16. Fink, D. (1992).Agrarian women: Wives and mothers in rural Nebraska 1880–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fitchen, J. M. (1991).Endangered spaces, enduring places: Change, identity and survival in rural America. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1972).The archeology of knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Frankenberg, R. (1993).White women, race matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hale, S. (1991). Feminist method, process, and self-criticism: Interviewing Sudanese women. In S. Berger Gluck and D. Patai (Eds.),Women's Words (pp. 121–136). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harding, S. (1986).The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harding, S. (1991).Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hartsock, N. (1983).Money, sex and power. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hartmann, H. (1981). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Toward a more progressive union. In L. Sargent (Ed.),Women and revolution (pp. 1–41), Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hawkesworth, M. E. (1989). Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth.Signs 14(3):533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hennessy, R. (1993).Materialist feminism and the politics of discourse. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Horowitz, R. (1986). Remaining an outsider: membership as a threat to research rapport.Urban Life 1986:409–430.Google Scholar
  29. Hyde, C. (1995). The meaning of whiteness.Qualitative Sociology 18(1):87–95.Google Scholar
  30. Joseph, G. (1981). The incompatible menage a trois: Marxism, feminism, and racism. In L. Sargent (Ed.),Women and revolution (pp. 91–108). Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, J. M. (1983). Trust and personal involvements in fieldwork. In R. M. Emerson (ed.),Contemporary Field Research. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kleinman, S., and M. Copp. (1990).Emotions and fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Kreiger, S. (1991).Social science and the self. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Landry, D., and G. MacLean. (1993).Materialist feminisms. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Light, L., and N. Kleiber. (1988). Interactive research in a feminist setting: The Vancouver Women's Health Collective. In D. A. Messerschmidt (Ed.),Anthropologists at Home in North America: Methods and Issues in the Study of One's Own Society (pp. 185–201). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lorber, J. (1994).Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lugones, M. C., and E. V. Spelman. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for “the women's voice.”Women's Studies International Forum 6: 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maguire, P. (1987).Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: The Center for International Education.Google Scholar
  39. Merton, R. K. (1972). Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge.American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 77):8–47.Google Scholar
  40. Messerschmidt, D. A. (Ed.), (1981).Anthropologists at home in North America. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In C. Talpade Mohanty, A. Russo and L. Torres (Eds.),Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism (pp. 51–80). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Monney, P. H. (1986). Class relations and class structure in the Midwest. In A. E. Havens, with G. Hooks, P. H. Mooney, and M. J. Pfeffer (Eds.),Studies in the transformation of United States agriculture (pp. 206–251). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  43. Naples, N. A. (1994a). Contested Needs: Shifting the Standpoint on Rural Economic Development. Paper presented at the Fifth Conference on Rural/Farm Women in Historical Perspective, Chevy Chase, Maryland, December 3.Google Scholar
  44. Naples, N. A. (1994b). Contradictions in agrarian ideology: Restructuring gender, race-ethnicity, and class in rural Iowa.Rural Sociology 59(1):110–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naples, N. A. (1994c). Widening the Lens on the State: Shifting the Standpoint to Mexican and Mexican American Migrants in the Midwest. Paper presented at Annual Workshop of Research Network on Gender, State, and Society, Social Science Historical Association, Atlanta, Georgia, October 13.Google Scholar
  46. Naples, N. A. (1992). Activist mothering: Cross-generational continuity in the community work of women from low income communities.Gender & Society 6(3): 441–463.Google Scholar
  47. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.)Doing Feminist Research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  48. Omi, M., and H. Winant. (1986).Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Pollner, M., and R. M. Emerson. (1983). The dynamics of inclusion and distance in fieldwork relations. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.),Contemporary field research (pp. 235–252). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ramazanoglu, C. (1993). Introduction. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.),Up against Foucault: Explorations of some tensions between Foucault and Feminism (pp. 1–25). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Reinharz, S. (1992).Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  52. Riessman, C, Kohler. (1987). When gender is not enough: Women interviewing women.Gender & Society 1(2): 172–207.Google Scholar
  53. Sandoval, C. (1991). U.S. Third World feminism: The theory and method of oppositional consciousness in the postmodern world.Genders 10: 1–24.Google Scholar
  54. Simmel, G. (1921). The sociological significance of the ‘stranger’. In R. E. Park and E. W. Burgess, (Eds.),Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, C. D., and Kornblum, W. (Eds.). (1989).In the field. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, D. E. (1987).The everyday world as problematic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, D. E. (1990).Conceptual practices of power. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, D. E. (1992). Sociology from women's experience: A reaffirmation.Sociological Theory 10(1):88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, D. E. (1993). High noon in textland: A critique of Clough.The Sociological Quarterly 34(1):183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spivak, G. C. (1987).In other worlds. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  61. Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography?Women's Studies International Forum 11(1):21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stern, S. (1994). Social science from below: Grassroots knowledge for science and emancipation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, A. (1990). Reading feminism in fieldnotes. In L. Stanley (Ed.),Feminist praxis (pp. 253–261). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, J. (1974). The new black sociology: Reflections on the “insiders” and “outsiders” controversy.” In J. E. Blackwell and M. Janowitz (Eds.),Black Sociologists: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 322–338). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Winant, H. (1994).Racial conditions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy A. Naples
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Women's StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvine

Personalised recommendations