can one critique narratives?

I found many problems with the messages conveyed in these narratives. I felt like the Luckett narrative was not effective in accurately representing the Asian-American experience. There was a significant focus on how she was a victim of sexual abuse. When complaining about the foster parents’ complicity, she claims that “for some perverted reason I thought that I might have deserved treatment like that” (423). From the standpoint of the narrative, the blame is displaced on the parents for her sexual abuse. However, perhaps the parents were fearful of the potential for the government to intervene, label them as unsafe parents, and then the immigrant gets deported. Perhaps the institutions are the real perpetrators of precarious situations by making immigrant life so precarious. Moreover, the Johnny Lee narrative has a limited view on religion in the United States. He claims that “God HATES the gay. They are all bad” (433). However, it is difficult to deny that more progressive Christian groups are more accommodating. It would be more useful to incorporate them into a political solidarity against fringe Christian groups (by labeling them as fringe, you destroy their ethos). Finally, the Ng narrative has a limited description of psychoanalysis by depicting all of them as accusing him of “simply going through phases” (447). Again, labeling radical instances of psychology as fringe would destroy their ethos and help acknowledge the progressive forms of psychology that does not treat homosexuality as an illness.

anti-gay christian groups face dissent

Most striking is that the above critiques seem extremely inappropriate. The narrative form makes their experience seem authentic, so I seem heavy-handed criticizing their honest standpoint. However, this performatively reveals the problems with narratives.

it is difficult to speak when overwhelmed by the narrative's artificial ethos

The major danger with giving preference to narratives when examining race in the United States is that the narrative form “subdues the reader’s “urge to produce rival interpretations of the events,” thereby foreclosing contestation over meaning” (Disch 264). Retaining this ability to place a critique on the narrative is important considering the limits that the narrative form can have. These narratives seem to be an attempt to learn about an individual’s identity through their autobiographical narrative. However, many people warn that this ‘narratology’ can apply a “disproportionate broadness” to analysis. “Nothing is differentiated here, neither life, nor narrative,” which run the risk of incorporating homogenizing analysis about certain experiences (Tammi 26). Jumping to quick conclusions can reinforce the very stereotypes that we are attempting to fight in our exploration of diversity.

Lisa Disch. Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. 2003. “Impartiality, Storytelling, and the Seductions of Narrative: An Essay at an Impasse”. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Volume 28. Pages 263-265.

Pekka Tammi. University of Tampere, Finland. June 2006. “Against Narrative (“A Boring Story”)”. Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas. Volume 4. Number 2. Page 26.