I read through the series of posts related to these and read Peter's synopsis/chapter on hermeneutics. I can now hear the voice of Gadamer in Levinas, who seems to shift from interpretation and knowing to ethics (a kind of ethical hermeneutics as Enrique Dussel has termed). "Understanding as productive process"; "meaning is always an experience, an event, a moment of applicationŠ" While reference is made to "text" I also see how "text" is viewed broadly, such that hermeneutics as a practice involves intentional "reading" and "interpretation" of events, social phenomena, etc. What I see in testimonio is a particular kind of intentional "voicing," an orientation toward community (a "collective" voice) that is distinct from an intentional "interpretation." While hermeneutics, as I read Peter's synthesis, orients to the past (via texts, and self always present), testimonio orients to "others". Ethics as relations to others are primary or assume a kind of primacy over epistemology and knowing. I believe Enrique Dussel has carved out important ground on this point. My sense in reading testimonios (and attempts at re-searching and understanding how they are generated and function within grassroots organizations) is that they DO speak against-to oppression. Testimonios are not transparent but can be rather messy, yet they are (or are attempts) at collective voicing. Unlike autobiographies that may be intentionally individual. [Note: some analytic and parsing out is needed in coming to define testimonio, but I recognize that autobiographies and testimonios can blur]. Below is an excerpt from my own research, an auto-ethnography of community organizing, that may be useful in teasing out a central problem/tension, that between individual and collective voicing. [Excerpt BeginsŠ] "To note, critical personal narratives, identified by Swadener and Mutua (2004) as a predominant genre in decolonizing writing, challenge post/positivist methodologies found in traditional social science approaches, such as case-study, ethnography, and narrative research. Indigenists resist the positivist and postpositivist methodologies of Western science because these formations are too frequently used to validate colonizing knowledge about indigenous peoples. Indigenists deploy, instead, interpretive strategies and skills fitted to the needs, language, and traditions of their respective indigenous community. These strategies emphasize personal performance narratives and testimonios." (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 10) In critical personal narratives, concerns with objectivity and a one-to-one retelling of events are secondary to the desire to speak against injustice. Like testimonios, critical personal narratives ³involve an urgency to communicate, a problem of repression, poverty, subalternity, imprisonment, struggle for survival, and so on, implicated in the act of narration itself,² (Beverley, 2004, p. 26). Thus, this approach entails reconstituting the narrator/storyteller as a spatially marked and historically inscribed subject that is conditioned and conditions both the interpretation of story and the writing of story. Stretching narrative beyond its uses in Western/Modern science requires that we reinvent narrative as a practice beyond spaces of empirical scientific investigation. Speaking from my particular socio-political location, political, ethical, and spiritual concerns are just as important as scientific concerns. The debates on testimonio not withstanding, I will argue that critical personal narrative as method and strategy should be viewed as collective rather than individual expression. Narration is, as John Beverley remarks on testimonio, an ³affirmation of the individual self in a collective mode,² (Beverley, 2004, p. 29). Finally, a caution that many indigenous and critical scholars have with post/positivist frameworks is that these in the name of scientific rigor often serve to silence the individual and collective voices of the subaltern. Consequently, the subaltern is only allowed to speak in the terms and conditions drawn out by the discourses and frameworks of the practice of legitimized science. What are sought here are methods and methodologies, always messy, that enable storytelling and analysis from the margins. I explicitly position myself as an indigenous, Chicano scholar and community organizer. Thus, my review of North participatory action-research projects is written from the standpoint of the South, invoking the voices of the people on the ground, the researched, and academics located at the margins working with/in the colonial-capitalist State. ------------------------------ On 1/4/15 1:46 PM, "Larry Purss" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Miguel wrote in the other thread: > >One of the (many) central problems raised by testimonio, which I also >find >in standpoint theory (Harding), is the question/tension/exploration of >individual AND >collective voicing. > >I was hoping Miguel and others could elaborate on this central *problem* >[and central question] >Peter's question if testimonio and third spaces also require resistance >and >therefore he chose to use the concept *hybrid* >I am hoping to refocus [re-search] the transformative EFFECT of *third >spaces* and link it back to the notion of "truth" as being relevant [not >universal]. > >Using ideas such as "living in truth" or "hearing each other into voice" >can develop within third spaces but if there is no resistance must we >shift >to a notion such as hybrid to understand Miguel's question and problem the >tensions within "individual AND collective *voices* >Larry > >I am not sure about starting another thread, but chose to do so to focus >back to Miguel's original answer "inviting" receptively further questions.