Having read this last year, I can (sadly) confidently say that a second year with this reading still continues to leave me confused, but I’ve definitely found I have a greater appreciation for Ana-Maurine Lara’s craft and style this time around. I think it was definitely easier to work with because I more or less had an idea of what I was getting into, though I really still do find her writing to be so dense and wordy (*cries in reader of very little theory*). I really engaged with the usage of an “opening ceremony” for introduction, and the book overall as an ofrenda this time.
I had a lot of questions regarding the introduction, specifically: Lara’s usage of footnotes to center her theory and “anthropological” lineage, as someone (I think JP) mentioned in class before spring break. I don’t know if this is my lack of theoretical basis in anthropological or ethnographic writing, but I was confused as to why the heavy theory introduction mattered so much? How much of this writing is accessible to non-theorists already orbiting/navigating in this space?
Hi Stephanie! Yes, her writing style is certainly very dense and theoretically heavy. It’s also very poetic and uncoventional for academic text standards, even in anthropology, which makes it much more challenging to fully grasp and meaningfully engage with the first times around. Part of her logic behind this is graspic the discomfort of unknowing/uncertainty as well as challenging traditional forms of writing and knowledge production in academia (she weaves imagery, cultural artifacts, poetry, story-telling, description, and other writing styles and tools together in often unconventional ways that mimic spiritual experiences). Regarding the theory part and her “anthropological lineage”, I would argue that the theory heavy introduction mattered so much because much of the people she mentions and calls into presence via the moyuba in the opening ceremony are predominantly queer : Black : Indigenous : Caribbean : Latin American nonhuman spirits, historical figures, theorists, and academics among other things, many of whom are not taught or talked about even today in most theory courses (and therefore, I would argue it is likely inaccessible to people heavily trained in theory in the traditional, Eurocentric sense as well). I know that doesn’t make it any easier to read, but just acknowledging that these are historically ignored and marginalized voices and people when it comes to theory and academic discourse just speaks much more to her Zambo conciousness and decolonial lens.