Negative feedback on autoethnography
I am grateful to my fellow humans for the overwhelmingly positive feedback that I receive on my autoethnographic work. Most of the time, fellow humans (academics and non-academics) read my autoethnography with care, empathy, compassion, solidarity. They share their own stories and experiences, ask questions, offer gentle and generous feedback. My second autoethnographic article is currently in production and I look forward to sharing it with others. I will say more about my experience when the article is out, but the comments from the academic reviewers and the editor were wonderful. Generous. Helpful. Caring.
At times, I receive negative comments too, and I want to be honest about them. Autoethnography is a polarising method, and I think that most humans who decide to use this method in their work foresee that they will be accused of narcissism, self-centredness, excessive self-disclosure and so on. I still think that autoethnography is worth it, because most of the feedback is very good (i.e., fellow humans see value in this work) and I feel that this is the only method that allows me to truly dive as deep as possible into everyday practices of sustainable living, as well as understand better various empowering and constraining factors, including policies.
A fellow human writes that my partner and I are "pious/smug naval-gazing/narcissistic over privileged academics playing at solving a problem by withdrawing from the world [...] The two seem to live in Copenhagen, are academics with what seems to be secure employment good incomes and little surveillance of how they fulfil a work contract, and refer to this as normal".
Peer review is anonymous, though in my field many fellow humans can guess that an article is authored by me, as I make all my data public and I often mention my mode of being in my lectures and talks as an example. Many fellow humans try to review autoethnography in a compassionate manner, as they are dealing with someone's life story and there is greater acceptance towards methods that are not traditional. It is very rare when one chooses to judge, rather than ask questions to clarify something or offer suggestions.
The words of the fellow human above provoked much sorrow in me.
I do not think that one should call fellow humans they do not know smug, narcissistic and so on. It is offensive, and I do not believe that this is how humans need to interact with one another. Unfortunately I've observed this heartbreaking tendency on a few occasions on my academic journey. Some fellow humans who say that they are passionate about sustainability treat others with utmost disrespect. And yet, for a genuinely sustainable society to manifest, we need more kindness, care, gentleness, love, empathy, solidarity.
As for the privilege, one can certainly say (and I say it very often) that we are privileged because we live in a peaceful, safe country with many social systems that empower (and also many that constrain, of course). This is not something to be ashamed of. This is something to reflect on and do everything we can to make the world a better place, so what is a privilege available only to some becomes the norm for everyone.
I do not consider myself a privileged academic. All the academic jobs I've had have been temporary. I've not had an income for a year now. I've never had a supervisor or a mentor who would guide me on my career path or provide me with career opportunities. The fellow human I've quoted above is thus wrong about my employment. If I was writing this review and felt that the income and employment question is important, I would invite the author to say a bit more about these matters rather than assume that the person is necessarily one with a stable and high-income job.
Because I do not have a contract, I do not have surveillance. In my previous positions I certainly had it. In some jobs and countries more so than in others. Generally, I do not believe that anyone needs surveillance. Humans need support, guidance and opportunities to work on their passions and interests.
Living in Copenhagen itself is not necessarily an indicator of a luxurious life. I moved to Copenhagen to start a life with my loved one who has childcare responsibilities here. Ideally, I would love to live close to nature. Living in Copenhagen is not easy on one wage, though it's been possible due to our practice of minimalism that I write about in my autoethnography.
The fellow human mentioned withdrawing from the world. I received a similar comment on my first autoethnographic article (though written in a much gentler way). Though I cannot see how I am withdrawing from the world (ontologically, it is not possible), I do believe that there are many ways of living sustainably and being an activist. It depends on one's personality. I prefer to live sustainably in my everyday life, write about it openly, study it, do lectures and talks, interact with alternative organisations. Someone else might prefer taking part in protests, be active in a network or in local politics, or doing something else entirely.
The reviewer wonders if someone in a different part of the world could live like we do. This is not the purpose of autoethnographic work. The purpose it to tell our own story. Other fellow humans should be able to tell theirs. They mention that others have rent to pay and children to feed. The same applies to us. We pay rent and feed a child.
The fellow human says that it is easy to mock the authors, considering the story that we are telling. Why would anyone have a desire to mock someone? Humans are capable of so many beautiful things such as care, kindness, compassion, empathy. In my experience of interacting with the readers of my autoethnography, I notice that no one chooses mocking someone over other reactions. Most choose kindness. Some choose gentle scepticism, which is ok. Whenever I read someone else's story, mocking the author is certainly not on my mind. I feel gratitude for their self-disclosure, a deep desire to learn from them. Though my own life and circumstances are different from theirs, I am still curious. Would I accuse them of playing sustainability? Would I think that I live true sustainability while they must be merely playing it? Certainly not.