Deirdre,

The problem is that I do not believe people will behave naturally and  
authentically when filmed and when knowing that their filmed behaviour  
will be made and kept public for all and for all to observe.  We all  
want to appear good and to be liked.

In my postdoc applications, I suggested 'filming and presenting the  
films to the group and in the groups' discussion' precisely to  
identify and discuss non-verbal gestures as part of the group's  
discussion or even anti-racism therapy. The space is safe and  
zealously protected as such by myself and the moderators.  It is a  
therapeutic safe and intimate space for self-care so I work hard to  
ensure individuals feeling secure and safe in the very protected group.

But it all boils down to the above point of people's natural and  
authentic behaviour.  I know I think of what I say and do extra  
carefully when I am filmed and recorded. I rarely agree to just be  
placed in the internet in an open to all website that is not even  
embodied - e.g., youtube.  I do not wish what I say in one context and  
time to be used against me in twenty years time in another context.   
Once you put something in the Internet, it is there for ever and  
cannot be retrieved.  It is being duplicated.

Another problem is showing films/clips as evidence out of context or  
in another context.  This can be disaster.

In my own AR method, I suggest logging privately for oneself on the  
train or at home and then making it public as blogging to a very  
selective support therapy group of critical friends that can be  
changed at will.  There are legal contracts to be signed by the  
users/participants.  I think this can be more authentic than  
displaying clips to all.

Sickness-unto-death is good.  It makes us change.  My tool is based on  
individuals' feeling sick and then going to change selves and the  
world.  I am influenced by Kierkegaard and the Existentialists.
Quoting Deirdre Flood <[log in to unmask]>:

> Folks
>
> I am a Masters student using LET as my methodology in my thesis and I've
> been following the debate with great interest when of course it has remained
> focused on the debate itself and not personalities.
>
> Alon, I can't help but respond to your  comment ie.
> *'Now I can either use words and send you this account or send you a clip
> where I become green and vomit.  Which is more meaningful and less
> ambiguous?  I could have just eaten something bad'*
> **
> You see I really don't see it as one or the other i.e. words or video for
> example. The use of both can eliminate ambiguity.   A person can use words
> to beautifully transform something on paper that isn't real just the same.
> Yes you can of course provide a written account and written evidence which
> convinces the reader but you can also provide valid visual evidence too.
>
> Dialogue  occurs in actual conversation between people and the engagement of
> all of a persons senses during that conversation provides a far richer
> feedback system in terms of communication and comprehension.   Video can be
> used to capture this interchange and the unspoken signals which, by the way,
> I am not necessarily referring to as life affirming energy.   I mean peoples
> expressions, how close they stand to someone, their body language the
> emotion they use when they speak, their accent, their mannerisms which all
> can betray a persons being-ness in the world.
>
> Put it this way and I'm trying to do this in a light hearted humorous way..
> You can tell me you feel sick to your stomach about something, you can even
> produce written evidence about what you've done that proves this.  However,
> within an authentic context that tests your convictions and I actually saw
> you go green and vomit (using your example) it would be then at that
> moment that  I would truly believe you.
>
> I see the dialectic as the primary mechanism by which to develop, analyse
> and engage in argument and produce research. It is a very effective and
> universally accepted way to do this.  However by drawing on the affordances
> of other forms of media as support  it can help to transform the words on a
> page into a contextual form of realism which gives strength to the
> dialectic argument.  I don't see why this does not work in harmony.
>
> The point as I see it in real life it doesn't matter how we express
> ourselves once we do it in a way that can be comprehended by the people we
> are trying to communicate to.   If you don't speak someone's language an
> expression e.g. a simile or gesture can transfer meaning.
>
> To bring this into the research context,  I think that the use of multimedia
> must be fully integrated to make sure that there is nothing ambiguous,
> nothing is left hanging as you suggested too, and written, spoken, and
> visual forms complement each other and assist in transforming information
> into knowledge. But I believe that is part of the rigorous process by which
> you commit to undertake and present the research itself.
>
> Finally Alon, I am finding your research very interesting reading in the
> short time I have available whilst I finish my own studies.  I also
> seriously hope you don't turn green and vomit any time soon :o)
>
> Best Regards
> Deirdre
>
>
>
>
> On 20 May 2011 10:41, Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Sara,
>>
>> I am slowly and surely reading your entry, having sent proposals for
>> anti-racism education to their destinations.
>>
>> I agree with Freire when he stresses that language comes with action and
>> I'll add values.
>>
>> I truly hate racism.  It sickens me to my stomach quite literally.
>> This is my value and political engagement/commitment statement and
>> intention.  My ontology is a person who is sickens by racism.  Doing
>> something active against racism and educating against racism gives meaning
>> to my ontology and defines it.  My intention is to educate against racism
>> and do it well.  My action is to show the racist how little insecure,
>> miserable and weak he/she is.  This is obviously also grounded in history.
>>  What was accepted four decades ago is frowned on and illegal nowadays so my
>> task is easier now.
>>
>> In my work and practice and praxis I develop my tool to fight racism and
>> discrimination.  I act.  Without acting it is all bla, bla, bla, as Freire
>> puts it and idle talk or yakking as I put it.  Without action, which is
>> political, value-laden, economic and history bounded, there is no meaning to
>> language. It is idle and a bore. Without communication and verbalisation,
>> the action is not directed and guided properly and not as powerful as it
>> could be.  Of course relational collaboration and dialogue is most essential
>> to the action.  This is verbal and ongoing.  We continue with the dialogue
>> until we understand each other and our meaning.  This is dialectical and
>> dynamic.  I discuss dialogue in my thesis, as much as I could in a short 90k
>> thesis.
>>
>> Now I can either use words and send you this account or send you a clip
>> where I become green and vomit.  Which is more meaningful and less
>> ambiguous?  I could have just eaten something bad.
>> Alon
>>
>>
>> Quoting Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Just to clarify that in my thesis I criticised in details the youtube
>>> method to which LET was transformed from autoethnography.
>>>
>>> Re- This is what watching real human beings, being with one another, (in
>>> real time or on film),
>>>
>>> Real human beings cannot be reduced to films.  For a start because
>>> filming misses on smell (very important), taste and touch.  It merely
>>> covers seeing and hearing.  Hardly sufficient.  Also, there is the
>>> question of
>>> human behaviour in front of camera.  Not asking permission is unethical
>>> and I think illegal.  People like to be portrayed favourable in front
>>> of a camera and this hinders natural behaviour.
>>> I offered an alternative of dialectically enquiring-within-b/logging
>>> into the question, how do I lead a more fulfilling, meaningful and
>>> secure existence and relationships in, with and towards the world for
>>> myself?  I argue this method to be more profound and analytic in the
>>> phenomenological analysis and processing of ontolological experiences
>>> and values. I discuss this AR method in details and try to develop it
>>> into postdoc project that will popularise it and legitimate it further.
>>>
>>> The thesis was a very practical suggestion of a dialectical AR method
>>> that I think is superior to LET in the studying of human existence and
>>> human subject.
>>>
>>> In 2009 was told by an Internal Reader who was reading a previous and
>>> very different draft why I criticise LET for doing something that it
>>> did not intend to.  But then in the LET homepage, it is described as an
>>> approach to human existence.  My thesis tries to transform it into a
>>> superior 'AR approach to human existence'.  One that better delves
>>> into, identifies and processes ontological experiences of human being
>>> in the world.
>>> Alon
>>>
>>> Quoting "Salyers, Sara M" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>> Dear Alon and All...
>>>>
>>>> Alon wrote:
>>>> "My main disagreement with LET is with the point that verbal   language
>>>> cannot express ontology that therefore requires   audio-visual youtube
>>>> clips.  Then,
>>>> the problem of course is that audio-visual clips only cover seeing   and
>>>> hearing.  What about smell, taste and touch?  I think efforts   need to be
>>>> made to express oneself verbally.
>>>> ...I keep seeing the most amazing examples of creative writing and   the
>>>> most amazing creative writing tutors."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boy, this conversation is forcing me to to reflect and clarify more   and
>>>> more deeply! It is very hard work and I thank you for making  me   
>>>>  do it!  I
>>>> think, as one who is profoundly in love with the  beauty  and power of
>>>> language, I can empathize with what you say.   Actually,  in terms of
>>>> precise definition, I agree with you - but  in terms of  what you  
>>>>  *mean* by
>>>> what you say, I take a different  view.  If  Ontology is "A   
>>>> science or study
>>>> of being: specifically,  a branch of  metaphysics relating to the  
>>>>  nature and
>>>> relations of  being; a  particular system according to which   
>>>> problems of the
>>>>  nature of being  are investigated; first philosophy", then,  ontology is
>>>> absolutely  expressed in words. In fact, there is no  such thing   
>>>> as inquiry
>>>>  *without* language.
>>>>
>>>> If, however, we are appropriating the word ontology to mean, not  the
>>>>  inquiry into 'being-ness' but being-ness itself, then the case  is
>>>>  somewhat different. (You notice that I do not use the word   existence.
>>>> This is because 'existence' does not convey the  qualities  of   
>>>> presence and
>>>> awareness, for example, that we assign  to  ontological inquiry. Which is
>>>> why, of course, ontology is so  often  'reassigned' to describe   
>>>> being-ness.)
>>>> Being-ness is a  clumsy,  cobbled together word, and quite ugly; but
>>>> substituting  the word  'ontology' is a misappropriation of existing
>>>> language to  meet a new  purpose, something that makes the process of
>>>>  distinction,  articulation and reflection extremely difficult.   
>>>> We  do need
>>>> a new  word but until we have one, I shall use being-ness.   As we know,
>>>>  words describe experience and assign meaning to that  experience;  i.e.
>>>> they are descriptive and interpretive. Words  'name' and thereby  describe
>>>> experience, (never entirely  adequately), but they cannot  *be* the
>>>> experience. Being, just like  sunshine, roses or starlight  has no meaning
>>>> that we do not assign  through language; (we see, we  feel, we name and we
>>>> interpret).  Being and naming are two different  things. We do these two
>>>> things,  describe experience and assign  meaning, congruently,   
>>>> fluently and
>>>>  seamlessly, which is why we  confuse the two more often than   
>>>> not;  that is,
>>>> we mistake assigned  meaning, or interpretation, for  experience to such a
>>>> degree that it  is almost part of the human  condition. Here's an
>>>> illustration:
>>>>
>>>> Suppose you are stopped in traffic when look to your right and see   the
>>>> driver of the car next to you - staring at you with a look of   absolute
>>>> venom. You say to your friend who is driving, 'That man in   the   
>>>> car beside
>>>> us looked at me with pure hatred'. What happened,   though you   
>>>> did not know
>>>> it, was that you looked at a man in the car   beside you at the   
>>>> same moment
>>>> when he turned his head toward you.  He  seemed to be staring - but he did
>>>> not really see you at all  because  he was thinking about how to tell his
>>>> wife that he had  just been  fired. You *could* have described the
>>>> experience by  saying, 'That  man just looked in my direction with a
>>>> terrible  expression on his  face.' But you instantly, and unconsciously,
>>>>  'named' and assigned a  meaning to his expression, one that was  personal
>>>> and hostile. It was  to that meaning that you reacted.  (Notice that the
>>>> meaning you  assign to the experience exists in  and arises only   
>>>> out of the
>>>>  language you use for your  interpretation.) You did not notice   
>>>> the  process
>>>> by which you have  now come to own and internalize an  experience of being
>>>> stared at  with hatred by a frightening stranger.  Your brain   
>>>> will react to
>>>>  the meaning as to an actual experience and  will produce the  appropriate
>>>> chemicals, so that you will feel shaken  and perhaps  upset for some time
>>>> afterwards, thus confirming a 'real'   encounter. But what   
>>>> happened actually
>>>> occurred, not in experience,   but only in the naming of what you saw and
>>>> the meaning you derived   from that naming.
>>>>
>>>> Thus what happens when we (daily), mistake meaning for experience,   is
>>>> that our interpretations create our descriptions of the world   which, in
>>>> turn, generate new ideas which create further  description…  or   
>>>> to put that
>>>> more simply, our 'stories' become  self-referenced,  grounded in and
>>>> sustained by their own internal  consistency rather  than by living
>>>> experience. Since human beings  live in stories, this  substitution of
>>>> interpretation for  experience can, and sometimes  does, have deadly
>>>> results. Please  forgive me, I mean no disrespect  or criticism   
>>>> by it, if I
>>>> take  another example from one of your posts  where you describe the
>>>>  psychological anatomy of a racist. (This one  doesn't have any  'deadly'
>>>> results but I think it shows the  possibility of a common  progression.)
>>>> Your postulation of the racist  character is entirely  consistent  
>>>>  with your
>>>> description of racism;  this in turn is  supported by a good deal of
>>>> evidence from other  sources. (Not all  the evidence, however, and not all
>>>> sources.) In  other words, your  analysis is entirely   
>>>> self-consistent - but
>>>> it also  puts meaning in  place of experience and then self-references. A
>>>>  racist is not an  idea but a person. You have described 'the racist'  and
>>>> then  presented that story as if it were an existential reality,  i.e. in
>>>>  place of a human being who thinks feels and acts in ways  that we  would
>>>> interpret as racist. You have analyzed that story and  drawn  sound,
>>>> compelling conclusions from the evidence contained  therein.  But  
>>>>  as this is
>>>> self-referenced, it's fundamentally flawed.  Here is  an amazing   
>>>> thing about
>>>> it, for me. *I* found your story both   satisfying compelling. It put the
>>>> racist firmly in the camp of the   'other', flawed by design, less healthy
>>>> than 'us', and definitely   less human. And I have to say that at visceral
>>>> level I really liked   that! But then, that is precisely what   
>>>> racism does -
>>>> dehumanizes  the  'other' while vindicating 'us'. So now I can   
>>>> see that the
>>>>  story  cannot be true because enjoyment of 'othering' - even those  who
>>>>  offend my own humanity because they 'other' and then oppress  on  
>>>>  the  basis
>>>> of class, race, sex, belief etc. - demonstrates that  the    
>>>> operant factor is
>>>> as present in me as it is in 'racists' and,  in  fact you and   
>>>> everyone else!
>>>>
>>>> What has that to do with what can and cannot live in words, with AR   and
>>>> Living Theory? Just this. The only way to avoid the kind of     
>>>> inauthenticity
>>>> that lives in the substitution of meaning for   experience, is to
>>>> understand, absolutely clearly, that words are   *not* and never   
>>>> can be the
>>>> experiences they describe; that you must   live, and live in, the  
>>>>  experience
>>>> that you describe; that you must   return to the experience again  
>>>>  and again
>>>> to test your own   description. Thus, my own experience of enjoying the
>>>> 'portrait of a   racist' and then reflecting on that enjoyment   
>>>> was all that
>>>> pulled   *me* up short; there were no flaws in the internal consistency of
>>>> your story and analysis. This is why we have to ring-fence   unfiltered
>>>> experience in ways that constantly bring us back to it,   that remind us
>>>> that description is not the 'thing-in-itself', so   that we can stop
>>>> describing and self referencing our own stories  and  begin to give the
>>>> being-ness that precedes description and  meaning  its true place.
>>>>
>>>> This is what watching real human beings, being with one another,  (in
>>>>  real time or on film), does for us. We can allow ourselves to  see  and
>>>> feel, just the way we might turn our faces up to the sun  or the   
>>>>  rain. Then
>>>> we can look at one another with love or wonder  and say,  'What   
>>>> *was* that?'
>>>> And begin to talk. And we will know  that the love  and wonder   
>>>> that we write
>>>> and talk about are  what-they-are, and are  beyond our words. And we will
>>>> also know  that it is wonderful to  reflect, to talk and to write  
>>>>  about them
>>>>  so that we can share and  grow from the experience. We will also  
>>>>   know that
>>>> the words and the  experience are not the same thing. The    
>>>> being-ness lives
>>>> in the  experience; the reflection (an image of  the real thing   
>>>> only), lives
>>>>  in the words. This is one of the  things that makes subjective, LT,  and
>>>> our sharing of the  experience in its being-ness (on film if    
>>>> that's all we
>>>> have  available) so powerful.
>>>>
>>>> love
>>>> Sara
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>