Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 23–41 | Cite as

Reflexivity, feminism and difference

  • Rahel Wasserfall


This paper addresses the relation of feminist methodology to political commitments. Distinguishing between a “weak” and a “strong” reading of Reflexivity this paper argues that the former contains certain assumptions on the deconstruction of the authority of the author and/or of the power difference in field relations. These assumptions are identified and their often problematic nature analyzed. Based on the impact of the murder of a peace activist in Israel on the field relations between informants from Moroccan Jewish ethnicity and a woman ethnographer of Ashkenazi ethnicity, the paper argues that in cases of conflict regarding basic political orientation, differences between ethnographer and informants become marked. Thus difficulty with the reflexive stand does appear. While in cases of shared commonalities, where the commonality of a shared gender becomes marked, reflexivity is viewed as a method to promote a more ethical approach to social scientific research.


Social Psychology Social Issue Cross Cultural Psychology Field Relation Political Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abu-Lughod, L. 1986:Veiled Sentiments. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  2. Abu-Lughod, L.: “Writing against culture.” Paper presented at the Seminar in Meta-Ethnography, School of American Research, Santa-Fe 5–9 June 1989.Google Scholar
  3. Berger Gluck, S. 1991: “Advocacy Oral History: Palestinian Women in Resistance” in Gluck and Patai (eds.),Women's Words. New York and London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Birth, K. 1990: “Reading and the righting of writing ethnographies”,American Ethnologist, Vol. 17, No. 3 (549-5558).Google Scholar
  5. Borland, K. 1991: “‘That's Not What I said’: Interpretive Conflict in Oral Narrative Research” in Berger Gluck and Patai (eds.),Women's Words. New York and London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cesara, M. 1982:Reflections of a Woman Anthropologist. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clifford, J. 1986: Introduction: Partial Truths. in J. Clifford and G. Marcus, (eds.),Writing Culture. pp. 1–26. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Crapanzano, V. 1985:Waiting: the Whites of South Africa, Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  9. Dominguez, V. 1989:People as Subject, People as Object. The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch, Y. 1990:“Israeli Women Organize Against Occupation and For Constructing a Culture of Peace” (in Hebrew) unpublished article July 1990.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, K. 1991: “Interpretation and Genealogy in Feminism”Signs, Vol. 16, No. 2 (322–340).Google Scholar
  12. Finch, J. 1984: “‘It's Great to Have Someone to Talk to’: the Ethics and Politics of Interviewing Women” in C. Bell and H. Roberts (eds.),Social Researching: Politics, Problems and Practice London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Flax, J. 1990:Thinking Fragments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Golde, P. (ed.) 1986: Women in the Field, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg, H. 1977: “Introduction: Culture and Ethnicity in the Studies of Israeli Society”Ethnic Groups, Vol. 1.Google Scholar
  16. Ginsburg, F. 1989:Contested lives, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. 1991:Modernity and Self-Identity Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  18. Gorelick, S. 1989: “The Changer and the Changed: Methodological Reflections on Studying Jewish Feminists,” in A. Jaggar and S. Bordo (eds.),Gender/Body/Knowledge, Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Izraeli, D. 1987: “Introduction Special Issue: Women in Israel.”ISSR, Vol. 5, No. 1–2 (1–5).Google Scholar
  20. Izraeli, D. and Tabori, E. 1986: “The perception of women's status in Israel as a social problem.”Sex Roles, Vol. 14, No. 11–12 (663–678).Google Scholar
  21. Klatch, R. 1988: “The Methodological Problems of Studying a Politically Resistant Community,”Studies in Qualitative Methodology Vol. 1, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, A. 1984: “Philosophy of Science in Anthropology,”Annual Review of Anthropology 13:25–39.Google Scholar
  23. Klein, R. D. 1983: “How to do What we want to Do,” in G. Bowles and R. D. Klein (eds.),Theories of Women Studies London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Marcus, G. and Fisher, M. 1986:Anthropology as a Cultural Critique: An experimental moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago University Press, Chicago & London.Google Scholar
  25. Mascia-Lees, F., Sharpe, P., and C. B. Cohen 1989: “The Postmodernist Turn in Anthropology: Cautions from a Feminist Perspective,” inSigns, Vol. 15, No. 1.Google Scholar
  26. Mies, M. 1983: “Towards a Methodology for Feminists Research,” in Bowles and Klein op.cit.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, H. 1988:Feminism and Anthropology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  28. Myerhoff, B. 1979:Number Our Days. Simon and Shuster, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Myerhoff, B. and Ruby, J. 1982: “Introduction,” J. Ruby (ed.),A crack in the mirror. Philadelphia University Press 1–39.Google Scholar
  30. Nader, L. 1986 (1970): “From Anguish to Exultation” in Golde (ed.)Women in the Field, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Oakley, A. 1981: “Interviewing Women: a Contradiction in Terms,” in H. Roberts (ed.),Doing Feminist Research. Routledge & Kegan, London, pp. 30–61.Google Scholar
  32. Patai, D. 1991: “U.S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible?” in Gluck and Patai (eds.),Women's Words New York and London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Prell, Riv-Ellen 1989: “The Double Frame of life History in the Work of Barbara Myerhoff,” in Personal Narratives Group (eds.),Interpreting Women's Lives. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rabinow, P. 1977:Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reinharz, S. 1983: “Experiential Research: a contribution to feminist Research” in G. Bowles and R. Klein (eds.),Theories of Women's Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 162–190.Google Scholar
  36. Shostak, M. 1981: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shokeid, M. 1982: “The regulation of aggression in daily life: Aggressive relationship among Moroccan emigrants in Israel,”Ethnology. 11(3):271–281.Google Scholar
  38. Soderqvist, T. 1991: “Biography or Ethnobiography or Both? Embodied Reflexivity and the Deconstruction of Knowledge-Power”. in Steier, F. op.cit.Google Scholar
  39. Stacey, J. 1990:Brave New Families. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Stacey, J. 1991: “Can there be a Feminist Ethnography?” in S. Berger Gluck and D. Patai (eds.),Women's Words New York and London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Stanley, L., and Wise, S. 1990: “Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist research process,” in L. Stanley (ed.),Feminist Praxis, Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Strathern, M. 1987: “An Awkward Relationship: The Case of Feminism and Anthropology,”Signs, Vol. 12, No. 2.Google Scholar
  43. Steier, F. (ed.) 1991:Research and Reflexivity London, Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Storper, D., and Wasserfall, R. 1988: “Methodologie de la Raison, Methodologie de la Resonance: d'un devenir femme de la recherche?”Revue de l'Institut de Sociologie Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Vol. 1–2, pp. 188–207.Google Scholar
  45. Swirski, S. 1989:Israel's Oriental Majority London, Zed Books.Google Scholar
  46. Watson, G. 1987: “Make me Reflexive-But not Yet: Strategies for managing essential reflexivity in ethnographic discourse”.Journal of Anthropological Research. pp. 28–41.Google Scholar
  47. Wasserfall, R. 1990: “Bargaining for Gender Identity: Love, Sex and Money in an Israeli Moshav,”Ethnology Vol. XXIX, pp. 327–341.Google Scholar
  48. Wasserfall, R. 1992: “The Meaning of Niddah for Moroccan Women Immigrants to Israel,” inPeople of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective (ed.) Eilberg-Schwartz, Suny Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rahel Wasserfall
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Women and SocietyThe Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations