Being someone who thinks people should have more ideas than beliefs (nod to Dogma) because of their flexibility, I want to preface everything I ever write by saying my thoughts are merely temporary and could be easily wrong and mistaken. I think conversations are far more synergistic than a blog post. So please consider my writing as permanent as a breeze.
I’m thinking about some of the limitations phenomenology as a methodological tool as I am understanding it. Whenever we call on experience, we are at the mercy of memory and sometimes it misleads us. I recall a study done where psychologists asked people the day after where they were on 9/11. The psychologists would ask that same question about the people’s whereabouts on 9/11 every year. The problem was that people’s stories changed and when confronted with their earlier stories people would not, could not believe themselves. Our memory of our experiences do not always reflect the truth about our past. I don’t think this invalidates the memories we have, but it has to complicate our relationship with them. I think that Young and Kruks’s use of the lived body supersedes the framework of gender because it allows for individual experiences within facticity and further expands on current scholarship. I still see it as a useful instrument. But whether we should let our problems of memory override what we believe our experiences to be seems problematic in its own right, but I think it is to our advantage to acknowledge such troubles.
Another issue that we discussed in class was the possibility for some experiences to occur without discourse. I’m trying to find it in Kruks again as I thought it was there (maybe not), but in class we talked about what if someone doesn’t have the language to describe what their thoughts, feelings and/or experiences were. It happens to me most days, where I can’t seem to grasped the words quite right. The absence of an empowering vocabulary or even grammatical structures/linguistic systems to convey some thought, feeling or experience leaves a void where communicable experiences are privileged. The effect of “lost voice” on someone can be even more dangerous when talking about traumatic experiences where the brief or casual discussion of them may leave someone who has had such experiences speechless and at times physically disturbed by the retrieved memory. References to sexual abuse, physical violence, suicide, etc., all have that potential. Without going in to a larger discussion on innumerable tangents relating to these issues, I think it is fair to say that discourse over lived body experiences is an incomplete discourse.
Regardless, I have enjoyed what we have covered so far and look forward to what we can discover for the rest of the quarter.