Michael's Post on ¡Venceremos?

            ¡Venceremos? takes an approach that is very different than what I was expecting. I am used to academic books solely being ethnographies or solely media analysis, but Allen’s book does both and more. At first, it did not work for me, but as I continued to read, I saw the value and importance of his approach to his overall project. He skillfully interweaves history, literature, film, and ethnography to show the complexity, contradictions, and nuances of race, class, sexuality, gender, and politics in Cuba. At first, his discussion of Fernando Ortiz and de Cierta Manera and their connection to the lives of Cubans seemed out of place, but I now see that his use of literature and film was to contextualize, compliment, and enhance his ethnographic data, much like most academics use history. This work was not just about individual Cubans, nor was it just about the state of Cuba or race/gender/sexuality/class in Cuba. ¡Venceremos? is about the interaction of all of these and the contradictions that inevitably arise as a result of their articulations. He was focused on processes more than static individuals and institutions.

            Allen’s methodology is distinctive to his project. As a result, there are many aspects of his methodology that I cannot apply to my own project. Given Cuba’s historical, geographic, and political contexts, it was appropriate and relevant to use literature and film. My project will take place in various places with various contexts. So, while Allen could talk about elements of
“Cuban culture”, I will not be able to talk about “Latina” culture. One aspect of his work that I can apply to my own project is this approach to let your project guide your methodology. My project is an unconventional topic that will require unconventional methodology.

My focus on Latina artists will require me to engage with methods outside of ethnography. In doing so, I hope to have the ability to seamlessly weave together various methods in a single narrative just as Allen did. He did not devote one chapter to literature and film, one to ethnography, one to history, etc. Each chapter is comprised of various methods. In my own work, I will have to engage with art history, art, and possibly other methods. My methodology will have to adapt to my project, rather than limiting my project to fit my methodology.

Another strength of Allen’s approach is the inclusion of himself in the analysis. He, himself, becomes part of the data. His experiences with the spaces, people, and discourses is as much a part of the project as his interlocutors’ experiences. He notes how he played with his own identifications. Sometimes, he would present and be seen as a Cuban. At other times, he would present and be seen as a middle-class academic from the US. The ways others perceived his race, class, sexuality, and gender were connected to larger processes that Cubans had to contend with. For example, he did not understand why nobody talked to him at the twenty-peso party he attended in Cerro. This experience exposed the ways class and nativity play a role in “gay” spaces in Cuba.

In my own project, my interactions with Latina artists will be useful information. Their perceptions of me, whether it be my sexuality, gender, and race/ethnicity, and how they choose to interact with me, will say something about how they see themselves and interact with others. I will not be able to relate with Latina artists like Allen is able to relate to some Black Cubans who do not fit within heteronormative ideas. The chapter, “Friendship as a Mode of Survival,” is probably most relevant to how I will relate with artist. I will likely share very similar interests and passions with them. If friendships develop, how will I understand, navigate, and negotiate these relationships? My relationships will likely be important to my analysis, and Allen shows why this cannot be left out.

Questions:
How do you feel about Allen's use of his own experiences, quotes from those he worked with, and his historical/media/textual analysis? Did he spend too much time on any of them? Would you have liked to see him speak less about some things and more about others?