Medios de Protección Colectivas

According to Riessman ‘the mechanical metaphor adopted from the natural sciences – investigators providing an objective description of the world and positioning themselves outside the field of study to do so – has given way to narrative mediating and interpreting the “other” in dialogue with the “self”’ (2008, p. 17). Reflexivity ‘urges us to explore the ways in which a researcher’s involvement with a particular study influences, acts upon and informs such research’ (Nightingale and Cromby, 1999, p. 228). If we adopt a psychosocial approach that claims the inseparability of the social from the psychic and therefore considers narratives to be the product of the encounter between subjects and their environment (be it the researcher, the linguistic system that informs their thinking or the imagined community they feel part of), then researchers should recognize their own impact on the construction of the interview text and include it in its analysis. Roseneil (2006) argued that the text produced by the interviewee ‘would, inevitably, have been inflected differently to a different interviewer’ but that ‘this is always the case in qualitative analysis. We bring ourselves to our research, and we make assumptions about what we study on the basis of our unique psychosocial biographies’ (p. 865). Therefore, the texts produced in the interviews that I conducted have inevitably been shaped by my own view point and so was their analysis. Below I have outlined some of the areas where I felt my presence particularly affected the production of texts.

5.5.1. A personal attitude towards Zionist ideology

First and foremost, since an important part of my research looks at the role that Zionist ideology and narrative play in the construction of ‘the Israeli subject’ and of ‘Israeliness’ in general, I had to monitor my personal engagement with that ideology. This often proved to be a difficult task the more I became aware

how entrenched was Zionist ideology in Jewish-Israeli culture and how

formative it is in the construction of certain concepts and preconceptions. Over the course of the research I came to acknowledge the complexity of this

ideology and its politicised implications and recognized my growing

ambivalence. On the one hand, I grew up in Israeli society and culture imbued with the Zionist world view and values; private memories, tastes, images, social relationships, hopes and fears and other minute details of daily life which all contribute to a sense of ‘home’, all emerged within the context of Zionist Israeli society, its ethos, values and culture. Criticism of government policies (e.g. around the occupation of the Palestinian territories) were not taken necessarily as criticism of Zionist ideology or narrative. My engagement with Zionism was also related to my familial socio-cultural background (or class) which is sometimes perceived in Israeli society as the Ashkenazi middle-class sometimes referred to as ‘the salt of the earth’ (see Ariella and Aaron’s references to this term in chapter seven). Among this group especially, but also in the Jewish Israeli public and its collective imagination Zionism is still associated with egalitarian (if not socialist) values, social engagement and mutual collective responsibility. Only after moving to Britain and having to struggle to gain social, professional and economic recognition, did I come to acknowledge the social, cultural and economic privileges that came with being part of that social class in Israeli society. On the other hand, I feel a growing criticism towards Zionism when it is often applied as a pretext for the

continuous occupation of the Palestinians, encourages the proliferation of nationalist-messianic ideologies and sentiments, provides justification for the marginalization of various groups within Israeli society, and promotes the militarization of Israeli society. This criticism emerged while still living in Israel, materialized in the decision to take a break and move to London for my PhD, and is currently present in the dilemma whether to return to Israel or to make my stay in Britain permanent. This ambivalence was captured for example in the dilemma whether to address the power-relations between Israel and the Palestinians as ‘occupation’ or to apply the more neutral term ‘the conflict’ as it is known to the Jewish-Israeli public. Thus adopting a critical position also widens the vocabulary for use. Most of the participants in my research had their own dilemmas regarding Israel and Israeli society although not always for

the same reasons as mine. Some, like Liat and Nira stated it explicitly. Others, like David, manifested greater ambivalence. In these encounters the interview constituted an area of mutual concern around our position as Israelis abroad, faced with the dilemma of whether to return or to stay, the longing for the culture, families and friends we chose to leave behind and the new

opportunities awaiting in Britain alongside the hardship of being immigrants or new-comers in other people’s ‘homeland’. These highly emotional dilemmas manifested themselves at unexpected times during the interview and

sometimes I was only able to acknowledge them in retrospect when analysing the texts. For example, Liat asserted: ‘I remember, from a very early age that I felt I didn’t want to be there [i.e. in Israel] {giggle}’. This surprised me greatly since she was born in Israel, lived there for most of her life and on first appearance seemed to have been part of a privileged social class. This surprise shaped the rest of the extract as I tried to make sense of her

unexpected, critical position and her persistent reluctance to identify Israel as her ‘home’. A critical reflection during the analysis allowed me to recognize some of my own cultural, social axioms which also revealed the

preconceptions underlying Israeli social discourses on nationality (e.g. the absorption of Jewish migrants as reflected in the interviews with Michael, Liat and Udit, the power relations between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jewish-Israelis, articulated in Yariv’s interview or the attitude towards the Israeli community in Britain demonstrated in Dorit and Roni’s interviews). This reflexive work allowed me to approach the next interview with greater sophistication and awareness of what is at stake for me, but also for my subjects.

5.5.2. Distribution of social roles in the interview encounter

Social roles and their respective subject positions were negotiated and assigned by both parties. Their analysis taught me about the social

stereotypes prevalent in Israeli culture which confine subjects on both ends of the interview encounter to specific expected social positions and determine what is expected to be said. For Nira and Liat, who were highly critical of Israeli society and who were the only ones who didn’t entertain the thought of

returning, I was a representative of the official Israeli institution which they had left behind. After talking about her reluctance, from a very early age, of living in

Israel, Liat added with a laugh: ‘I’m screwing up all your results now [laughs]’. This comment demonstrated to me what she believed I was expecting to hear from her as an Israeli subject abroad – that Israelis have fond memories of their childhood in Israel and therefore maintain a strong nostalgic attachment to it. In Nira’s interview I was cast as a representative of formal Zionist Israel. This served her to produce a critical text of Israel but I also found myself speaking from this assigned position, adopting at times a conformist and defensive approach towards Israel. Udit’s story about her immigration from North Africa to Israel and the social integration hardships she encountered have placed me as a ‘Sabra’ from a veteran family in Israel in a defensive position. In Dorit’s interview, who was highly engaged with the Israeli and Jewish community of London, I found myself in a position of an Israeli who lives away from the ‘Israeli ghetto’ as it is often referred to. Finally, for some interviewees (e.g. Na’ama, Yariv or Roni) who knew I was a psychologist, the talk seemed to be motivated by a phantasy that I will help them make sense of the ambivalent feelings and confusion regarding their status in Britain. In these occasions my profession as a psychologist played an important role in the construction of texts.

5.5.3. A growing acquaintance with the area researched

As a relative new-comer to London and to the field of social research, my style of interviewing was shaped gradually. My acquaintance with the Israeli

community in London, its establishments and the typical formal and informal daily practices of Israelis in Britain was collected gradually, partly through certain informal meetings I held with various members of the community (an editor of the local Hebrew newspaper, a local Israeli rabbi, and other members of the community) and partly in the course of the first interviews (e.g. in

Na’ama’s interview). Hence, my agenda as a researcher changed gradually in the course of the first few interviews.