GADAMERIAN THEORY

Gadamerian Theory

Gadamerian Theory

Introduction

This paper speaks to the paper engagement with Gadamerian philosophy and hermeneutic phenomenology with the focus of how it influenced my research frame and changed the flavour of this data collection process. As it speaks to the process of co-producing meaning with this participant, the paper will not be discussing the outcome of this research but rather reflecting on the research frame itself. The papper will however, provide an overview of this research endeavour and how I came to investigate what understandings five teachers held around critical environmental education. Therefore, the goal of this paper is two-fold. The first is to introduce Gadamerian philosophy and hermeneutic phenomenology and the second is to share thoughts about the interplay between these and environmental education research.

Discussion Gadamerian Philosophy

Gadamer represents one of several philosophers who emphasize a shift from pure description of the conscious experience to an interpretation that includes evolving meaning. At the core of Gadamerian philosophy is the belief that the interplay of partners in dialogue has the potential to generate shared meaning through what Gadamer calls the “fusing of horizons” (Gadamer, 1975). This “fusing” occurs because the interpreter of a text, or the listener of dialogue, belongs to and is conditioned by their culture, or as Gadamer would argue, their horizon of tradition. As people interact within a particular historical horizon of tradition Gadamer insists all interpretations are anchored in our social and individual histories. These histories or pre-understandings enter into any dialogical situation with us for they serve as the foundations for our values, assumptions, and relationships. Because of their pervasive influence, Gadamer claims examination of these pre-understandings, including historical traditions, provides a way towards promoting self-understanding and meaning. He advises that through non-adversarial dialogue there is always the ability to create meaning, but there is never the possibility to arrive at a final, conclusive meaning (Gadamer, 1975). Therefore, meaning is always temporal, situational, progressive, and shared through interactions, implying it is limitless with possibilities, and open to interpretation and reinterpretation. Meaning, to Gadamer, is not stable; it shimmers. This philosophy differs from classical hermeneutics where text is seen as having definite meaning (Madison, 1991).

In contrast to his precursors, and in postmodern style, Gadamer (1975) maintains there is no original, hidden, or fixed meaning present in text, waiting to be “discovered.” Refusing the notion of a fixed meaning, he believes the meaning of a text (or words spoken in dialogue) is never purely a function of the original intention of the author/speaker, but rather equally dependent on the historical situation of the reader/listener. He decenters the author and/or speaker by maintaining that understanding is not about reproducing the predefined, intended meaning in as accurate form as possible, but rather producing meaning through the interplay of dialogue between the author/reader or speaker/listener. Therefore, he does not seek to reproduce text nor want to purely capture what someone has said in order to find the meaning, but instead, seeks to explore opportunities for the production of new ...