Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
understanding actually occurs, I recognise it because suddenly the apparatus
falls away and I simply speak German. So it is with hermeneutic: the interpret-
ive process creates something that is neither my horizon nor the others. This
third thing is a necessary medium; but it is just as necessary that this medium
fall away. At this point in transcending the apparatus we can say that under-
standing occurs. There is still, however, the quality of a kind of third horizon
here; one has not dissolved into the other culture; one has not erased one's
own horizon; but one's horizon has become entwined with another in a unique
instance of fusion.
So it can be reasonable to assume, then, that understanding comes from applying an
apparatus (or tool) repeatedly over some data until the apparatus or tool becomes super-
fluous - that is to say, some understanding has been reached because the apparatus is
no longer needed.
Using the Gadamerian analogy, successfully engaging in a conversation with a German
would validate one's understanding of the newly learnt language - i.e. testing the un-
derstanding with new untried data. If the conversation is unsuccessful, by whatever
criteria, then the apparatus is reapplied, learning restarted, and then another test is un-
dertaken. This is the hermeneutic cycle in its simplest form. The act of understanding
flows from understanding the whole to understanding all the little bits that make up
the whole. Then when confronted by a new 'little bit' that purports to be part of the
whole under consideration, if understanding has been achieved, then a consistency
between the new knowledge and the context of the existing whole will be maintained
without any conflict (Myers, 1994b, p. 191).
Practical hermeneutics
The apparatus that is so critical to achieving/acquiring understanding in Gadamer's case
(see above) is specially designed to create a bridge between zero understanding and the
final goal of complete understanding. The apparatus itself is specific to the task at hand.
In the use of critical hermeneutics in the interpretation of texts (and text analogues),
Harvey and Myers (1995, p. 20) quote Paul Ricoeur:
In critical hermeneutics the interpreter constructs the context as another form
of text, which can then, of itself, be critically analysed so that the meaning
construction can be understood as an interpretive act. In this way, the hermen-
eutic interpreter is simply creating another text on a text, and this recursive
creation is potentially infinite. Every meaning is constructed, even through
the very constructive act of seeking to deconstruct, and the process whereby
that textual interpretation occurs must be self-critically reflected upon. (Ric-
oeur, 1974)
This research will create, analyse and seek to understand these additional texts on the
original texts under investigation.
There are already further issues to consider. There is a substantial cultural difference
between an English-speaking Californian (say) and a German speaking Berliner. What
if we are engaging with text rather than a person? What if the text was written 200
hundred years ago about things that were important at the time, but have become obscure
in the 21st century?
This 'distance' between the hermeneutist (the enquirer) and the author (and text) under
investigation is referred to as 'historicality' by researchers such as Myers (1994b, p.
189).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search