LBST 330 – Fall 2018
Module 2 – Research In Context
Response Paper #1 to Ruspoli, Being in the World and Vilhauer, Gadamer and the Game of Understanding
The following is a brief response to Being in the World, a documentary by Tao Ruspoli, and Gadamer and the Game of Understanding, an article by Monica Vilhauer. This response will include thoughts on some of the leading ideas connecting these two materials and will also build upon my previous response paper (on Berger’s Ways of Seeing) by allowing me to consider how I will conduct research for my graduation project. The section focused on how these materials could inform my research methods will be in an informal, reflective format without the inclusion of concrete, specific examples.
Ruspoli’s Being in the World focuses mainly on Heidegger’s existential philosophy which argues that inquiry is a human practice basic to our existence and that the best way to learn about something deeply is to become very skillful at it. Vilhauer’s piece introduces Gadamer’s philosophy which addresses the tension, in research and in practice, between Truth and Method (also the title of one of Gadamer’s book). According to Vilhauer’s article, Gadamer advocates open, ethical play as a means of uncovering ‘the truth’ or a greater understanding of the world. Both materials deal with themes of human agency and subjectivity, truth seeking and inquiry, understanding and authenticity, commitment and genuine engagement, and openness to letting the process of living be the process of learning and allowing both these processes to alter you simultaneously in profound and unexpected ways.
Both Ruspoli and Vilhauer illustrate ways that the environment shapes humans’ minds and humans’ minds are thus reflected in their environment. Both materials give examples of how the ways that humans’ manipulate their world can teach us about “our nature” leading humanity to a greater level of understanding of themselves and the world around them. How we manipulate our environment can demonstrate our genuine engagement it, as Gadamer’s philosophy would advise, or could represent our instinctive search for truth or natural mode of inquiry, as Heidegger might put it.
Both materials appear to be employing critical philosophy in order to increase preparedness for an increasingly technology-driven and globalized world. Ruspoli’s film explicitly warns against being seduced by technology, in light of its recent and rapid rise in popularity and use, and Vilhauer’s piece advocates radical openness as the ideal means of reaching true understanding and conducting genuine, ethical research.
In their materials, Ruspoli and Vilhauer both argue that there is a need for practical theory in order to create a better world. Both materials also present philosophical theory which departs from the Cartesian tradition of separation between the mind and body and also of the mind, or thinking agent, and the external world. Similar to Berger, in Ways of Seeing, Ruspoli and Vilhauer acknowledge texts, art objects, and other human manipulations of their environment represent a dialogue between creator, viewer, and the work itself which makes a claim to truth by merely existing and being created, recognized, or altered by a subjective agent. Such works are also totally dynamic in nature as they take on new meanings each time a new viewer interprets them or alters their interpretations.
The following section is a brief and informal reflection on how the materials influenced my thoughts about how I see myself doing research for my graduation project:
Ruspoli’s film made me consider the value of participant-observation as a research methodology. Overall, the film seemed to advocate immersing oneself into whatever phenomenon you are interested in learning about and this accurately describes the participant-observation model of research. I also appreciate the participant-observation model because learning can occur and knowledge can be discovered, in this model, during a process or while reflecting upon a process rather than simply from the outcome of an experiment. This process-based, qualitative nature of participant-observation research appeals to my personal preferences.
Ruspoli’s film forced me to consider myself as an essential component of the research I’ll be conducting, the product of which will ultimately be inextricable from me and the preconceived biases, assumptions, and values I hold. This encouraged me to give additional thought to my research topic and methodology in order to confirm that my work will have real meaning, purpose, and value to others. It is important, to me, that my research be both critical and useful.
I enjoyed the way that the film and reading both elaborated upon Berger’s Ways of Seeing, continuing to build the argument that knowledge apprehension and truth discovery occur through practical, skillful, and dialogical human activity (most examples are artistic, but sports were also a strong example of this). This made me begin to consider how challenging it would be to design a multi-faceted research project which interrogates and attempts to explain the mechanisms underpinning all these interactions. The richness of the product, however, would be a strong motivator to overcome any challenges.
I also appreciated the dismissal of the Cartesian tradition in both materials because, to me, it overlooks the interconnectedness of life and can produce difficulty in seeing ‘the Other’ as an equal, necessary, and essential participant in one’s own (and ultimately humanity’s) overall development.
I was very impressed with ethics of genuine dialogue which Vilhauer presented in Gadamer and the Game of Understanding. The ethical guidelines laid out seemed, to me, to be helpful guidelines for conducting sincere and fruitful interviews. They described an ethical way to approach your research subjects as not merely subjects distant and detached from oneself, but as entities to be fully, attentively engaged with, non-judgemental of, entirely curious about, and open to and playful with. This seemed not only to be an excellent way to conduct interviews, but to simply be in the world.
Finally, the materials made me think about humility and transparency and how they could be the keys to the research process in terms of displaying my research outcomes. Contextualizing results in their methodologies and their methodologies in the mind/environment of their creator (ie: me) seems critical to me at this point in my research plan development process. In terms of humility, the article also stressed, through the analogy of research as play, that one must be open to the alteration of one’s ideas and worldview. While being open to changing your position is one form of humility, this led me to think about how the article still presents an argument for the existence of a ‘Truth about the world’ ultimately discoverable and graspable by us. While this may be a real possibility, I see the most genuine form of humility as the acknowledgement that there may be truths about the world which are simply unknowable to humans. One somewhat ironic example of this, which I have yet to see Psychology or any other discipline totally challenge, is the human mind.