I knocked out 2(!) interviews today and I have 2 more planned tonight, give me a handclap because I'm on a roll:) While gathering my list of interviewees, I've been stressing over finding enough "naturals" to interview. Both of my interviews today were with women who are "natural", but not in the sense I usually think of. Both women have what would be considered "good" hair by most members of the African-American community. My project is centered around the notion of good hair, and yet I ignored what good hair is defined as in the black community. The women I interviewed are natural, in the sense that they have never had relaxers, but they aren't considered natural in the "traditional" sense. Most of the time when women have to declare "I am natural" it is because they have coarse, kinky hair. Women who are natural because they have "good" hair are not usually considered natural. This "revelation" has caused me to recognize how my "preconceived" ideas may limit research. This new found information has caused me to wonder how I can define this new category into my research because Type I natural, or good hair, is not stigmatized in African-American community. African-Americans come in many flavors with an array of ethnic heritages, which is often evident in the variety of hair textures seen within the African-American community. Good hair is celebrated in the African-American community, and the premise of my research is that natural hair is stigmatized among members of the African-American community and even society as a whole. This development adds an interesting twist to my research question and has opened a new area for exploration.
WAY TO GO WAY TO GO WAY TO GO!!!!
ReplyDeleteSo now the train is rolling, right? It's left the station and you're gaining velocity? Well enjoy the ride! (And more appropriately, I guess, the "views".)
To help you accumulate data, are you planning on transcribing every interview fully? Just taking notes can suffice for some. Especially those conversations that happen in passing. As a party or something. And if you're not able to write down your notes and recollections of what was said right then, you do it as soon as you get home, or back to your car, or where ever you can do it.
KEEP IT UP! GET AS MANY AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN!!
On the category of Type I natural, or good hair, not stigmatized in African-American community, here's something to consider: those "lucky" few that don't need relaxers but don't have the traditional natural appearence of more kinky hair are in a different position than more others. They're not put into the position of having to change their hair to meet an "unnatural" standard. As a result, they'd be less likely to have been "taught" by that experience (here you'd cite Paulo Freire's concept of the pedagogy of the oppressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed]) that the dominant culture really does oppress some groups with standards that are difficult, unhealthy, and sometimes impossible to meet. You could also cite Marilyn Frye's notion of the double-bind of oppression that these people would not experience: you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's unhealthy--physically and psychologically--and expensive and politically disempowering if you do straighten, but risky, potentially off-putting, and--well, let us know others negative outcomes--if you don't staighten. Thus, this qualifies as indicator of a double-bind situation that oppresses people. The lucky few, though, may be more likely to say, "yeah, I'm lucky, sorry!" and that's it, and not see the rest of it. On the other hand, maybe they're made to feel aware it as much or more than others. Maybe there's a special "pedagogy of the almost oppressed" that you could label for them.
ReplyDeleteDo you follow all that? Lemme know if you don't. This group is obviously and important to talk about at least to some degree, though maybe only in passing.