The ambivalent practices of reflexivity

Reflexivity involves turning one's reflexive gaze oil discourse-turning language back on itself to see the Work it does in constituting the world. The subject/researcher sees simultaneously the object of her or his gaze and the means by which the object (which may include oneself as subject) is being constituted. The consciousness of self that reflexive writing sometimes entails may be seen to slip inadvertently into constituting the very (real) self that seems to contradict a focus on the constitutive power of discourse. This article explores this site of slippage and of ambivalence. In a collective biography oil the topic of reflexivity, the authors tell and write stories about reflexivity and in a doubled reflexive arc, examine themselves at work during the workshop. Examining their own memories and reflexive practices, they explore this place of slippage and provide theoretical and practical insight into what is going on in reflexive research and writing.

'Why does cultural studies want history?'

Cultural studies has often been accused of maintaining too strong a focus on the contemporary and the immediate as a result of its primary interest in popular culture and the media. The role of history, such criticisms suggest, has been displaced by this contemporary emphasis. Nonetheless, much cultural studies work takes a principled stand on the necessity of historicising the products of its research. Consequently, it is worth asking, with British historian Carolyn Steedman--'why does cultural studies want history?' This article begins to answer that question through the discussion of some aspects of a specific research project within Australian cultural studies.