i was reading through the paper I have written a year ago. in that paper, relying on Pratt's article on the contact zone, her description of a.e. as a means where the native re-writes, represents herself with the representations drawn by the dominant, kind of a critical dialogue with those representations. And then I was relating it to Bill Aschcroft's concept of habitation, a strategy of “the colonised and dislocated peoples”, as a means to
"transform that external cultural pressure which constricts them because it extends through the widening horizons of the experience of place, from the intensely personal (often regarded as the province of poetics) to the global" (Aschcroft, 2001, p.158). I now realize that it is bit of far fetched reading of autoethnography. the relations I saw at that time looks a bit forced to me at the moment. it almost describes autoethnography as a form of dwelling. The practices of dwelling into the new language is the focus of my research, it is the habitation, the tinkering of the migrant as Bourriaud call it. this is the field.
a.e. is a tool to look at it, a forked sword that penetrates into the researcher first as a subject and as the object of research.
taking of from Nigel Rapport’s perception of ethnography as (also) the embodiment of the local practice, so slowly growing native is a side effect of fieldwork.