Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of communication

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

Yes, it's a good and tricky question, and as I said Habermas changed his mind several times. I think one answer is that one could be *both* a member of the group *and* have a grasp of the whole, the latter provided by some kinds of instrument or technology or theorization. Another is that there could be a division of labor between participants, with members' know-how, and researcher, outside but with 'know-that' derived from prior research, or the research skills to generate the relevant knowledge. 

Martin

On Jul 17, 2012, at 9:49 PM, mike cole wrote:

> Martin-- If one is not a member of the group, a legitimate participant of
> Rank N, how can one understand the whole (which is matches the problem of
> being entirely inside the group, which precludes knowing the whole)??
> 
> mike
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>> This is one of the topics, and a point of disagreement, in the debate
>> between Gadamer and Habermas. The question gets framed as whether one needs
>> something more than the ability to participate in a community of practice
>> in order to conduct research that is transformative, emancipatory. (Not all
>> action research tries to do this, of course.) Gadamer argued that the
>> potential for critique and change is immanent in the practices. Habermas
>> argued that the researcher needs something more. He has changed his
>> position on what exactly this is over the course of his career; his first
>> proposal was that the researcher needs a theory of the distortions that
>> exist in everyday practical activity in order to critique them and change
>> them. I tend to think of it as a claim that a researcher needs something
>> that few if any participants have - a sense of the whole.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Jul 17, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>> 
>>> So, just wondering, if action research is truly a bottom-up activity,
>> why go to theorists to justify it?
>>> 
>>> Peter Smagorinsky<http://www.coe.uga.edu/~smago/vita/vitaweb.htm>
>>> Distinguished Research Professor<
>> http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/docs/policies/iga/DRP-Guidelines.pdf> of<
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of> English Education<
>> http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/english/secondary/index.html>
>>> Department of Language and Literacy Education<
>> http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/english/secondary/index.html>
>>> The University of Georgia<http://www.uga.edu/>
>>> 309 Aderhold Hall<http://www.coe.uga.edu/about/directions.html>
>>> Athens<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens,_Georgia>,<
>> http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/> GA<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)> 30602<
>> http://www.city-data.com/zips/30602.html>
>>> 
>>> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education<
>> http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/>
>>> Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
>>> 
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:23 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of
>> communication
>>> 
>>> Hi Larry,
>>> 
>>> I think Gadamer made a valuable contribution to the philosophy and
>> theory of hermeneutics, and showed the importance of interpretation in all
>> fields. But there are, to my thinking, limitations to his analysis that
>> suggest to me that one has to turn elsewhere for a basis for action
>> research. Mainly, there is no place for systematic *mis*understanding in
>> Gadamer's hermeneutics. He presumes a community of like-minded people,
>> united in mutual understanding. it would be nice, I suppose, if life were
>> like that, but surely it is not. In most places there is 'an Other who *is*
>> an object for the subject,' to play with the words you quoted from Gadamer.
>> The debates between Gadamer and Habermas in the 1970s centered around the
>> issue of whether there is a place for critique in hermeneutics.
>>> 
>>> Here's one good summary of the debate:
>>> Mendelson, J. (1979). The Habermas-Gadamer debate. New German Critique,
>> 18, 44-73.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> On Jul 17, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have been reflecting on action research and the turn it took into
>>>> discussing voice, tone of voice, and the loss or extinguishing of voice
>>>> when others are marginalized.
>>>> 
>>>> I came across this statement from Gadamer who wrote the foreword to the
>>>> book "Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics" by Jean Grondin.
>>>> 
>>>> "So, understanding is no method but rather a form of community among
>> those
>>>> who understand each other. Thus a DIMENSION is OPENED up that is not
>> just
>>>> one among many FIELDS of inquiry but rather constitutes the PRAXIS OF
>> LIFE.
>>>> 
>>>> Gadamer is exploring the 2nd person voice and putting it play with the
>> 1st
>>>> person and 3rd person voice.
>>>> 
>>>> I wanted to abstract this dis-position towards the 2nd voice. I want to
>> now
>>>> embed this statement in its context. Gadamer wrote,
>>>> 
>>>> "But it was only when Dilthey and his school gained influence on the
>>>> phenomenological movement that understanding was no longer MERELY
>>>> juxtaposed with conceptualization and explanation."[Gadamer, foreword]
>>>> 
>>>> In other words, understanding came to be seen as constituting the very
>>>> fundamental structure of human becoming-in-the-world and moved to the
>> very
>>>> center of philosophy.
>>>> 
>>>> "Thereby subjectivity and self-consciousness lost their primacy. Now
>> there
>>>> is an Other who is not an object for the subject - but someone to whom
>> we
>>>> are BOUND in the reciprocations of language and life. So, understanding
>> is
>>>> no method but rather a form of COMMUNITY among those who understand each
>>>> other. Thus a dimension is opened up that is not just one among many
>> fields
>>>> but rather constitutes the praxis of life." [Gadamer, foreword]
>>>> 
>>>> Gadamer's tone of voice may have something to contribute to action
>> research.
>>>> 
>>>> Larry
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca