'The speck and the log' in research methodology

‘The speck and the log’ in research methodology

Jesus’ words about the need to see the log in one’s own eye before trying to take out the speck in that of my brother or sister certainly have universal applicability (Matthew 7.3-5). In a country like South Africa, with numerous languages, cultures, ethnic (or racial) groups and differing religious faiths such a word perhaps carries additional weight. More often than not we would interpret this word as dealing with our personal relations and our lives in a moral sense.

For some time however I have been convinced that this word has just as much to say about the human ability or inability of understanding the other person, albeit the next door neighbour or the real stranger. One could easily go one step further and say that it has to do with the human understanding and perception as such. On which conditions am I able to understand and register that which is outside me?

When I started to reflect on what I should write about a seminar that we had at UWC last Tuesday it struck my mind that we in fact to some extent were dealing with these words of Jesus. The seminar did however not make mention of it and I had prepared a paper for a joint seminar in the Arts Faculty at the Centre for Humanities’ Research.

I was a bit worried as I was addressing problems far beyond my own reach as a theologian. At the same time I think it important to do theology in direct engagement with other disciplines and such engagement involves some risk taking. I should not have worried. Colleagues as well as students responded creatively most of who presently are struggling with how to do research, i.e. what method to use.

My venture was to present, as part of a larger study, three major European scholars[1] who have influenced the thinking of many of us in the latter part of the 20^th century and until present and see how they could be useful in developing a research methodology. The title of my paper was: “Close Reading, Contrast Reading and Social Theory. Learnings from Jürgen Habermas, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jacques Derrida.”

You may rightly ask, why present a paper on three European scholars at an African university? I would have to give a rather long answer to be exact, but in short form I would have to say that there are no short cuts here. In developing new paradigms from an African perspective for example, it should be done as distinct from something else. In order to do this properly one has to know intimately that which one is to critique or even distance oneself from. It makes sense to start with what for a generation has dominated, not only the Western world but a large part of the philosophical thinking in the world. So even if there is an African perspective already, I would argue that there still is a need to relate this perspective to scholars as those whom we discussed last Tuesday.

Even if it is justified to say what I am saying it should also be said that this kind of reasoning is nothing new. The whole post-modern era is in a way a less well structured attempt to take new routes and try new ways and methods.

Then I must say that the hermeneutics[2] developed by Gadamer is fundamental to any scholar today. He talks about the necessity of knowing one’s ‘fore-understandings’ before entering into an interpretation. One could to some extent at least also use the expression ‘preconceived ideas’. It does not help to know the writer of a text intimately in order to understand if it is not clear what my own ‘preconceived’ ideas are. They could hinder my understanding or they could help.

This is where the words of Jesus come in. When critiquing someone else, including what that person has said or written, it would be wise with some introspection. There may be a log of prejudice or preconceived ideas that first has to be taken away before I could see and make the right judgment. As a direct inspiration of this kind of reasoning one could say that in a research situation it would be just as important to know what the presuppositions are for the research in question and doing that actively by virtue of developing a relevant method.

A remaining problem of course is, and I have struggled with this in various ways myself, that it may be quite difficult to get the whole picture of what is my pre-understanding. Even if I honestly try I may not be able to see my own eye to the full or what is in it, log or speck.

The second conclusion one has to draw from this kind of reasoning is that the one I am and what I bring with me as a person directly influences me in my thinking and interpretation. The inevitable answer, and to many Biblical scholars a difficult challenge to overcome, must be that there is not one interpretation of a particular text, but many. There may be one truth, and it may be linked to one particular source of revelation like the Bible, but our understanding of it differs and will always differ.

Habermas has played an enormous role in linking our interpretation of texts with the empirical and social sciences. After his contributions it is no longer possible to follow positivist ways of measuring empirical data in a technical way only. What is registered for example in an ordinary questionnaire on social conditions of any kind is but a fraction of the knowledge and facts that are there. What we have to reckon with are also various interpretations of these social realities, often carried over from earlier generations by tradition.

However it is quite difficult to agree with Habermas on some points today. One is his insistence that it is possible to somehow break with one’s history and tradition, affirm the present and in doing that open for the future. This is not just fair talk; he exemplifies it with the recent history of Germany. The unification of the east and the west according to him could only be done in such a way. It was necessary to break away from the ideology of the GDR, but also from the legacy of what had become Western Germany. I would argue that history tells us that it is not possible to break away from one’s history.

Secondly Habermas insists on rationality as a primary tool in our thinking and one could only agree; the problem is however that he thinks that the way we reason is not necessarily culturally bound and he is also careful to say that religious and faith convictions should be kept out of such rational behaviour.

On exactly these two points one could today criticize him, and African scholars probably would. It is to most people clear that the way you think is to quite some extent tied up with tradition and culture and it would be wrong to see the rational as a product of Western thinking only, originating with the Greeks. Equally it is impossible to separate rational behaviour from faith convictions. Most people have both and that should be accepted. Faith in God should not necessarily lead to less rational thinking and behaviour, but there could be a creative and healthy tension between the two.

A seminar at best is the place where each one has a say, and the argument carries the weight, not one’s status. It is interesting to see how students grapple with these questions, where nobody has the final answers. They got quite engaged. But they seem in particular to be fascinated and intrigued by Derrida and deconstruction; more about that another week.

---

[1] There are of course a number of other scholars that could have come into the picture here. Still, these three are in focus in many ways when dealing with methodology at the beginning of the 21^st century.

[2] ”Interpretation of literary texts.”