Can there be a decolonial autoethnography? If so, what could such an autoethnography look, sound, and feel like? If the possibility of decolonizing this mode of knowing does not exist, then what are the impediments—discursive, material, political, social—that disallow a move to decolonized autoethnographic work? Where would decolonization take us? What does it mean to write the self in and out of colonial historical frameworks? In this special issue, we bring to life such conversations through nine essays and a postscript that perform, ruminate, narrate—with a thoughtful tenderness—some versions of decolonized and postcolonial autoethnography. The essays illustrate the form that emerges when the colonial and postcolonial (both past and present) are taken as central concerns in autoethnographic writing.

In this autoethnographic exploration, I question the notion of academic home. I argue that as postcolonial academic bodies who are educated in the Western societies, our voices are often questioned or silenced, and our bodies and writing are often surveilled. Hence, the idea of home and belonging is often questioned. I offer decolonizing autoethnography as both a method and academic space to speak from and decolonize the ways in which our diasporic and immigrant bodies can challenge the power structures around us.

Because of rapid developments in new media technologies and digital platforms, we live in a media-driven and highly digitalized society. Most of our everyday experiences are either highly mediated or digitalized. Hence, we live in a complex and multidimensional cyberculture. In order to understand and make sense of our experiences and identities within this culture, as scholars, we require fresh, new methods; hence, I propose cyber or digital autoethnography. In this essay, I define cyber or digital autoethnography and making a case for their importance. I will also outline cyber or digital autoethnography’s potentiality.

In this essay, I argue that, for the most part, hybridity is a state of confusion or complication rather than a state of empowerment. Because diasporic individuals experience a constant state of flux, the state of hybridity can be considered a fluid state of being that allows contestation, negotiation, and (re)creation of cultural identities. Consequently, diasporic individuals -particularly queer diasporic people -carve out physical, psychological, or cyber locations (homes) where they exist simultaneously within their host, diasporic, and queer cultures. Contributor NoteAhmet Atay is an associate professor at the College of Wooster. His research revolves around critical intercultural communication, cultural studies, and media studies. In particular, he focuses on diasporic experiences and cultural identity formations of diasporic individuals; political and social complexities of city life, such as immigrant and queer experiences; the usage of new media technologies in different settings; and the notion of home.

No abstract