Intercourse with a donkey. ( Praxis of everyday important researchers & journalists )
Practices of Everyday important researchers and journalists
The problem an 'important' researcher and journalist has to overcome and are taught, is the mastering of the art of objectivity and subjectivity. Importance must rise above notions of prejudices and beliefs and move towards a rationale of objectivity over the subject content, i.e.) analysis of the subject itself (the ordinary, everyday person) Journalism ( as does research ) proposes to be objective over ourselves; the not ordinary, person but the extraordinary for example : the 'important' researcher, journalist over and binary contrasted to the juxtaposed and relational condition to the ordinary others. Therefore, the problem an important researcher and journalist has to overcome and are taught, is the mastering of the art of objectivity and subjectivity. Importance must rise above notions of prejudices and beliefs and move towards a rationale of objectivity over the subject content, i.e.) analysis of the subject itself (the ordinary, everyday person) Journalism ( as does research ) proposes to be objective over, and ourselves (the not ordinary, person, but the extraordinary for example : the important researcher, journalist ' us'! as contrasted to not juxtaposed to the ordinary others. Once the extraordinary researcher and journalist have gained objectivity, the text books argue, the extraordinary may report upon and analyse a more objective theory about the ordinary person and its ‘ordinariness’ of their everyday lives and practices. So say all the extraordinary.
The problem inherent and contingent within the belief of the ordinary and extra ordinary is not in the ‘ ordinary’ persons’ ability to be objective or even the attempt at the researchers or the journalists profession to be as objective as one professional can be. No! being a journalist or a researcher is not problematic! The problem with research and journalism is in 'subjectivity' . When studying and analysing the 'ordinary person', for example, placing a very large lens on 'their' subjectivity the researcher and journalists limits the lens on their own life/lives . Further example of this limitation is : there are issues of the auctorship, authorship or the master ship of authority and ownership of the subject and its ordinary subjectivity the especial journalists are assumed to and supposed to be objectively categorising, retelling and analysing ' others lives as an objective experience outside of a relational process... pheeew! long sentence! Simplified.
The ontological issue of the extraordinary and ordinary begins within the ‘in’ and ‘nesses'. When extra-ordinary people, compare notions to the study of writing up their own extra ordinary story as compared to a non-ordinary persons, problems maybe re encountered through subjectivity of ownership, editing and re telling of it. It is very easy to run an expose on 'other' but never the ' self' . The ownership of the subject and the story that the journalist studies and claims ownership of, has opportunities for self-defining attributes worth analysing in the ‘in ‘ness’. Upon analysis, of extra ordinary attributes of the extra ordinary, researcher and journalist, many find a sore lack of reflexivity and possibly ethical implications contingent ‘with’ –‘in’. It is by the studying of a self as ' authors' of A own 'ordinary' story that many may find out how difficult it can be to be truly reflexive and objective. Certainly within the paradigm of objectivity and subjectivity of the ordinary practices of everyday lives and furthermore within the translation, telling and the editing of ' ordinariness '.
There does appear a gap in the translations between the researchers and journalists study of the ordinary person (subject) and the journalist as the subject of one’s own study. By this I mean the very fact there is an ideology of research and journalism means that a contingent presupposition exists. that supposition appears to be the everyday importance of researchers and journalists compared and contrasted with, well...ordinary people!
Nothing new here to see or learn from. Anthropological arm chair 'discovery' ? I hear you sigh, well that’s what the text books tell us. However, what if we were to study ourselves and our story using an ethnographic methodology from an interactionist perspective? What would I reveal about myself and my everyday practices and ordinariness ? What would we translate to each other and how would another translate my, our , us story? knowing that the world might read it? For example: I am stating that, if we were to interview ourselves or offer a reflection of our own life, our biography our genealogy, what would we put in and what would we leave out and what would we hide? from us? Here in follows a Fictional Interview with the ordinariness of a family home. How might it be read and translated?
Ordinary person: Hello Not Ordinary person: hi...tell me about your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person : well I got a family and we have a laugh, I go to work in a call centre, zero hour contract, sometimes I bunk of work and sometimes I steal pencils for my kids who sell them at them at school, bless em’ When we have a laugh we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out. Some complain but some join in but that old cow at 73 she is a right proper moaner oh and I forgot to add ….I sometimes have intercourse with a donkey!
Not Ordinary person: Hello Ordinary person: tell me about your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person: well I just told ya... got a family and we have a laugh, I go to work in a gaming call centre, I decide who has credit to game or not and sometimes I bunk of work and sometimes I steal pencils for my kids who sell them at them at school. When we have a laugh, we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out. Some complain but some join in but that old cow at 73 she is a right proper moaner oh and I forgot to add…I sometimes like to walk in a field of donkeys.
Not Ordinary person : Hello Ordinary person: tell me what is your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person: well I got a family who work in an field, zero hour contracts, sometimes I bunk of work and sometimes I steal food for my kids from my own labour who sell it on the streets. When we have a laff, we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out.
Not ordinary person: tell me about your life?
Ordinary person: well I got a family and don't work, got me benefits cut see...for 6 mths, couldn't work... so they say . Yet we try we have a laff, we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out ...
Hello Ordinary person: tell me what is your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person: I live on the streets, sometimes in the fields, whatever is warmer and offers food ...I steal private space to sleep and private food to live... tell me about your life ?
In this one mythical conversation we have endless endings with the donkey in a field of wheat. An assumption on any one of these endings would change the content and could throw the entire research of course by the very important missing the very real lives of the ordinary person. I expect the ‘intercourse with a donkey’ scenario happens consistently, that the ordinary person often hides something in its statements of its ordinariness. Let us take for example, another scenario, one that’s more serious. The ordinariness of a person in a family home. Extra ordinary researcher and journalist
: Hello Ordinary person: hello Extra ordinary researcher and journalist : what do you do at home? Ordinary person in the UK : Well I wash up and clean and look after my family, we watch TV sometimes and sometimes we switch it of because we cant afford the leccy, and sometimes I grow flowers in a pot in my garden, sometimes we listen to music very loud.
Extra ordinary researcher and journalist : That’s nice do you enjoy that?
Ordinary person: It’s ok , It’s my life
Extra ordinary researcher and journalist : What music do you listen to loud?
Ordinary person: Pop music. End of interview
From this conversation we find that even though there appears an interview of the ' ordinary ' person, findings note that nothing that indicates of anything other than ordinary, nothing out of the ordinary and we find in ordinary ‘autonomous moments’. People watch TV, grow flowers in a pot and listen to loud pop music theory mis- interpret ordinary way of life.
What if I proposed to you that this is a real story, a real transcript from a person that is about to commit suicide? Or a person that did commit suicide but that information, at the point of the interview, is currently not known? How do you analyse this now? What clues to the unsaid can you find in this interview that this ordinariness is the constant thought of suicide? If you ever read this and email me I will tell you what that clue was . As extra ordinary researchers and journalists, we are not trained in every discipline, domestic violence, emotional abuse, and these are all too common, too ‘ordinary’ in every day lives. I happen to know the end of this interview and I know what was lost in translation, by that I mean what was said without being said in the ordinary life.
The problem an important researcher and journalist has to overcome and are taught, is the mastering of the art of objectivity and subjectivity. Importance must rise above notions of prejudices and beliefs and move towards a rationale of objectivity over the subject content, i.e.) analysis of the subject itself (the ordinary, everyday person) Journalism ( as does research ) proposes to be objective over, and ourselves (the not ordinary, person, but the extraordinary for example : the important researcher, journalist ' us'! as contrasted to not juxtaposed to the ordinary others. Once the extraordinary researcher and journalist have gained objectivity, the text books argue, the extraordinary may report upon and analyse a more objective theory about the ordinary person and its ‘ordinariness’ of their everyday lives and practices. So say all the extraordinary!
The problem an 'important' researcher and journalist has to overcome and are taught, is the mastering of the art of objectivity and subjectivity. Importance must rise above notions of prejudices and beliefs and move towards a rationale of objectivity over the subject content, i.e.) analysis of the subject itself (the ordinary, everyday person) Journalism ( as does research ) proposes to be objective over ourselves; the not ordinary, person but the extraordinary for example : the 'important' researcher, journalist over and binary contrasted to the juxtaposed and relational condition to the ordinary others. Therefore, the problem an important researcher and journalist has to overcome and are taught, is the mastering of the art of objectivity and subjectivity. Importance must rise above notions of prejudices and beliefs and move towards a rationale of objectivity over the subject content, i.e.) analysis of the subject itself (the ordinary, everyday person) Journalism ( as does research ) proposes to be objective over, and ourselves (the not ordinary, person, but the extraordinary for example : the important researcher, journalist ' us'! as contrasted to not juxtaposed to the ordinary others. Once the extraordinary researcher and journalist have gained objectivity, the text books argue, the extraordinary may report upon and analyse a more objective theory about the ordinary person and its ‘ordinariness’ of their everyday lives and practices. So say all the extraordinary.
The problem inherent and contingent within the belief of the ordinary and extra ordinary is not in the ‘ ordinary’ persons’ ability to be objective or even the attempt at the researchers or the journalists profession to be as objective as one professional can be. No! being a journalist or a researcher is not problematic! The problem with research and journalism is in 'subjectivity' . When studying and analysing the 'ordinary person', for example, placing a very large lens on 'their' subjectivity the researcher and journalists limits the lens on their own life/lives . Further example of this limitation is : there are issues of the auctorship, authorship or the master ship of authority and ownership of the subject and its ordinary subjectivity the especial journalists are assumed to and supposed to be objectively categorising, retelling and analysing ' others lives as an objective experience outside of a relational process... pheeew! long sentence! Simplified.
The ontological issue of the extraordinary and ordinary begins within the ‘in’ and ‘nesses'. When extra-ordinary people, compare notions to the study of writing up their own extra ordinary story as compared to a non-ordinary persons, problems maybe re encountered through subjectivity of ownership, editing and re telling of it. It is very easy to run an expose on 'other' but never the ' self' . The ownership of the subject and the story that the journalist studies and claims ownership of, has opportunities for self-defining attributes worth analysing in the ‘in ‘ness’. Upon analysis, of extra ordinary attributes of the extra ordinary, researcher and journalist, many find a sore lack of reflexivity and possibly ethical implications contingent ‘with’ –‘in’. It is by the studying of a self as ' authors' of A own 'ordinary' story that many may find out how difficult it can be to be truly reflexive and objective. Certainly within the paradigm of objectivity and subjectivity of the ordinary practices of everyday lives and furthermore within the translation, telling and the editing of ' ordinariness '.
There does appear a gap in the translations between the researchers and journalists study of the ordinary person (subject) and the journalist as the subject of one’s own study. By this I mean the very fact there is an ideology of research and journalism means that a contingent presupposition exists. that supposition appears to be the everyday importance of researchers and journalists compared and contrasted with, well...ordinary people!
Nothing new here to see or learn from. Anthropological arm chair 'discovery' ? I hear you sigh, well that’s what the text books tell us. However, what if we were to study ourselves and our story using an ethnographic methodology from an interactionist perspective? What would I reveal about myself and my everyday practices and ordinariness ? What would we translate to each other and how would another translate my, our , us story? knowing that the world might read it? For example: I am stating that, if we were to interview ourselves or offer a reflection of our own life, our biography our genealogy, what would we put in and what would we leave out and what would we hide? from us? Here in follows a Fictional Interview with the ordinariness of a family home. How might it be read and translated?
Ordinary person: Hello Not Ordinary person: hi...tell me about your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person : well I got a family and we have a laugh, I go to work in a call centre, zero hour contract, sometimes I bunk of work and sometimes I steal pencils for my kids who sell them at them at school, bless em’ When we have a laugh we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out. Some complain but some join in but that old cow at 73 she is a right proper moaner oh and I forgot to add ….I sometimes have intercourse with a donkey!
Not Ordinary person: Hello Ordinary person: tell me about your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person: well I just told ya... got a family and we have a laugh, I go to work in a gaming call centre, I decide who has credit to game or not and sometimes I bunk of work and sometimes I steal pencils for my kids who sell them at them at school. When we have a laugh, we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out. Some complain but some join in but that old cow at 73 she is a right proper moaner oh and I forgot to add…I sometimes like to walk in a field of donkeys.
Not Ordinary person : Hello Ordinary person: tell me what is your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person: well I got a family who work in an field, zero hour contracts, sometimes I bunk of work and sometimes I steal food for my kids from my own labour who sell it on the streets. When we have a laff, we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out.
Not ordinary person: tell me about your life?
Ordinary person: well I got a family and don't work, got me benefits cut see...for 6 mths, couldn't work... so they say . Yet we try we have a laff, we sometimes get drunk and sing songs on the street and the neighbours come out ...
Hello Ordinary person: tell me what is your ordinary life, ?
Ordinary person: I live on the streets, sometimes in the fields, whatever is warmer and offers food ...I steal private space to sleep and private food to live... tell me about your life ?
In this one mythical conversation we have endless endings with the donkey in a field of wheat. An assumption on any one of these endings would change the content and could throw the entire research of course by the very important missing the very real lives of the ordinary person. I expect the ‘intercourse with a donkey’ scenario happens consistently, that the ordinary person often hides something in its statements of its ordinariness. Let us take for example, another scenario, one that’s more serious. The ordinariness of a person in a family home. Extra ordinary researcher and journalist
: Hello Ordinary person: hello Extra ordinary researcher and journalist : what do you do at home? Ordinary person in the UK : Well I wash up and clean and look after my family, we watch TV sometimes and sometimes we switch it of because we cant afford the leccy, and sometimes I grow flowers in a pot in my garden, sometimes we listen to music very loud.
Extra ordinary researcher and journalist : That’s nice do you enjoy that?
Ordinary person: It’s ok , It’s my life
Extra ordinary researcher and journalist : What music do you listen to loud?
Ordinary person: Pop music. End of interview
From this conversation we find that even though there appears an interview of the ' ordinary ' person, findings note that nothing that indicates of anything other than ordinary, nothing out of the ordinary and we find in ordinary ‘autonomous moments’. People watch TV, grow flowers in a pot and listen to loud pop music theory mis- interpret ordinary way of life.
What if I proposed to you that this is a real story, a real transcript from a person that is about to commit suicide? Or a person that did commit suicide but that information, at the point of the interview, is currently not known? How do you analyse this now? What clues to the unsaid can you find in this interview that this ordinariness is the constant thought of suicide? If you ever read this and email me I will tell you what that clue was . As extra ordinary researchers and journalists, we are not trained in every discipline, domestic violence, emotional abuse, and these are all too common, too ‘ordinary’ in every day lives. I happen to know the end of this interview and I know what was lost in translation, by that I mean what was said without being said in the ordinary life.
The problem an important researcher and journalist has to overcome and are taught, is the mastering of the art of objectivity and subjectivity. Importance must rise above notions of prejudices and beliefs and move towards a rationale of objectivity over the subject content, i.e.) analysis of the subject itself (the ordinary, everyday person) Journalism ( as does research ) proposes to be objective over, and ourselves (the not ordinary, person, but the extraordinary for example : the important researcher, journalist ' us'! as contrasted to not juxtaposed to the ordinary others. Once the extraordinary researcher and journalist have gained objectivity, the text books argue, the extraordinary may report upon and analyse a more objective theory about the ordinary person and its ‘ordinariness’ of their everyday lives and practices. So say all the extraordinary!
Comments