From: Annette King
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 February 2006 13:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: criticisms about
BNIM
Hi everybody,
getting a bit confused here.
I always thought that the epistemological point ( i..e the
reason on why the interview technique and the analytic apparatus was developed)
about biographical = narrative (i
(i.e. objective hermeneutics) approach was that
biographical accounts are a manifestation of a biographical construction a
person has (or develops) about his/her life. Developing an
understanding of this is the purpose of the techniques of interviewing and
analysis. And that this 'deep structure' of a biographical account has
permanence or a sense of solidity beyond the contextual , i.e. it does not
change with context (or if it does, then we have a biographical fissure and is
noteworthy). Those repeat interviews that people have given in the Holocaust
related studies were 'stable' in this sense.
I always thought that there was a tight fit between the
approach and the method of inquiry. Because it is not spurious on what you need
to do to 'work out' what this biographical (self) understanding
is and the analytical steps are an intrinsic part of this - you
need to consider the self presentation and contrast it with the deep
structure etc. - again underlying this is an assumption that we can
indeed do this through the analytical steps and that biography itself is a
shared 'cultural'? phenomenon. so in this sense the analytic outcome at its
core is not dependent on those doing the analysis -variation yes, but not
simply context driven.
. I also think this is where the sociological
implications come into play, because of course behind a biographical (self)
construct lie the social forces which shaped these.
I also think that the point that
Wolfram Fischer made about one of the challenges of
modernity being to actively and continuously construct one's
biography over a life course fits beautifully here. Which in
turn raises the question about using in non-modern cultures and also cultures
that are very different.
In this sense, we have a an 'integrated' theory that
derives from a specific philosophical standpoint - it means it can't be all
things to all (wo)men and probably may not sit will with other
standpoints. In the end you might agree with a philosophical standpoint or
reject it - but I don;t think it is eminently stretchable to comply with all
positions or resolve the dilemmas they pose.
What I do think is a problem is where this approach is most
fruitfully employed. The upshot of this is that it is difficult to use the
method where there is no emphasis on 'biography', because you are
likely to move away from this central point. This brings us back to 'fit for
purpose' I suppose.
REgards
Annette
Sending this to you, ~Tom in the first place, as I am not
quite sure about convention of the discussion group.
A.
Annette
King sent this to me to forward to the list.
Don’t forget that it is easier for you to
post to the list directly – all those who receive messages from the list have
direct access to everybody on the list through the address.
Best wishes
Tom
Our 9th Intensive Short Course
and our first concurrent Training of BNIM Trainers starts tomorrow. Exciting!
Annette King
Research Programme Manager
Tel.: 01227 864 210
Fax: 01227 866 484
ext. 73044
*********************************************************************