I'm having a bit of trouble... any thoughts would be helpful.
I'm struggling with the line between the readings on hermeneutics and translation/metaphor. Is there one? Is it distinct? How on Earth did I miss it?
I think I felt that the transition from Phenomenology into Hermeneutics was pretty fluid. I understand the differences between Phenomenlogy and Translation...but I'm struggling to delineate between the most recent sets of readings.
... am I being silly in even trying to separate them?
No, I don't think it's silly to try and keep them separate. As I understand the frames, hermeneutics might be thought of as a process of interpretation (<>Text<>Interpretation<>Analysis<>Interpretation<>Text~), whereas metaphor and translation are rhetorical/didactic strategies. If I wanted to interpret and analyze relationships through text, I'd be applying hermeneutics. If I wanted to build an argument or persuade, metaphor or translation might be effective. By using metaphor I highlight connections I want to emphasize and occlude other aspects (which may be quite relevant) for a particular purpose (explicit or implicit). On the other hand, by using translation I shift the discussion into an altogether different discourse - the intent is to decenter and punch through /problematize horizons.
ReplyDeleteDoes that help any at all?
There's also hermeneutic phenomenology. Apparently this is a growing trend in qualitative analysis. For more on that, you might see Laverty, S. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3).
Hey Sheila,
ReplyDeletei didn't see you in class last week but i was just gonna say i think i share your uncertainty. Tobey's suggestion makes sense to me, but (unless i'm mistaken) i think Claudia also framed translation as kind of an extension or continuation of our hermeneutic conversation.
I definitely don't think it's silly to want to separate them (in general i tend to like relatively tidy conceptual distinctions), but i also think it can be useful to get comfortable with messiness (not as an abandonment of rigour, but as an acknowledgement of complexity).
Again, maybe i’m out to lunch, but i think that (as with many such things) there are a number (a limited number, but more than just two) of more-or-less equally coherent ways of thinking about it: we could take up ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ versions of the assumptions involved, and draw ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ lines, and/or we can work with either ‘broad’ or ‘strict’ definitions. It depends on what we’re trying to accomplish.
I don’t know if it will help you, but that's my way of dealing with the confusion i (frequently!) experience when trying to understand things like different paradigms and theories.
Ryan