In their opening essay, Ben Rampton and Constadina Charalambous call on sociolinguists to continue developing a mode of inquiry that "embraces ethnography" for the sake of developing a more "generative account of (in)securitization, treating the lived experience of (in)securitization as an intensifying apprehension of institutionally authorized vulnerability and existential threat, produced (and received) in communicative practice in a range of social settings, both vernacular and elite." Building on this definition of (in)securitization, along with Rampton and Charalambous' claim that "the lived experience of surveillance remains relatively uncharted," I hope to make three contributions in my response: first, to offer a glimpse into an ongoing discussion taking place among US-based ethnographers of colour about the effects of surveillance on ethnography; second, to present an example of the impact of (in)securitization on the researcher/researched relationship that has impacted my own thinking about methodology; and third, to extend Garfinkel's notion of the "breach" within our current sociopolitical context. Throughout this essay, I call for a greater sense of connection to and solidarity with those "vulnerable subjects" that we engage with ethnographically.
AbstractIn this commentary, the author offers three related perspectives regarding (in)securitization: first, an overview of ongoing discussions taking place among US-based ethnographers of colour about the effects of surveillance on ethnography; second, an example of the impact that (in)securitization may have on the researcher/researched relationship in contemporary ethnographic research; andthird, an extension of Garfinkel's notion of the "breach" within the current sociopolitical context. Throughout this essay, the author calls for a greater sense of connection to and solidarity with those "vulnerable subjects" that we engage with ethnographically.