Читать книгу Ugandan Children's Literature and Its Implications for Cultural and Global Learning in TEFL - Stephanie Schaidt - Страница 11

Within the growing importance of ICC, another approach has to be mentioned. From the 1990s, many German scholars have strongly relied on hermeneutically oriented didactics; the concept of Fremdverstehen [understanding of the other] was developed. Different perspectives were taken: Optimistic hermeneutics (Bredella, 1996, 2010a; Bredella & Christ, 1993, 1995; Christ & Legutke, 1996) were contrasted with sceptical hermeneutics (Hunfeld, 1991, 1992a, 1992b).

In 1991, the Graduate School “Understanding Otherness” (Graduiertenschule “Didaktik des Fremdverstehen”) in Gießen was founded. As the name implies, it focuses on the understanding of the foreign/the other. From 1991 to 2000, the members of the graduate school researched and published widely in the field of hermeneutically oriented didactics. For one of the founders of the graduate school, Lothar Bredella, an advocate of philosophical hermeneutics, the understanding of the other is possible and also desirable. It is based on two perspectives: ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ (das Eigene and das Fremde) or the outer and the inner perspective (Innen- and Außensicht). It is a ‘melting of horizons’ of the two perspectives (Horizontverschmelzung) that is strived for. The Didaktik des Fremdverstehen, therefore, focuses on seeing the world through the eyes of ‘the other’ and ‘the self’, comparing different world views and negotiating perspectives (Perspektivenwechsel and Perspektivenkoordination). The graduate school draws on the positions of the philosopher Gadamer (2013, p. 350) who assumes that ‘the self and ‘the other’ have a “historically effected consciousness” and are embedded in their particular cultures that shape them. When they engage in a conversation with each other or with a text, they exchange ideas and opinions and this eventually leads to a “fusion of horizons” (ibid.). Bredella (2010a, pp. 141–143) and Bredella & Christ (1995, p. 11) emphasise that they consider ‘self’ and ‘other’ as subjective, dynamic and relational categories. In later publications, members of the graduate school often use the terms Fremdverstehen and intercultural learning interchangeably (Bredella, 2010b, p. 120).

In response to Fremdverstehen, positions that question hermeneutical approaches to foreign culture were taken. Various scholars (Eckerth & Wendt, 2003b, pp. 12–13; Fäcke, 2006, p. 37) remark that Fremdverstehen, as it is understood by members of the graduate school, focuses on the dichotomous nature of ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ binary and so rather reinforces than dismantles stereotyped notions of cultural difference. The categories of ’the self’ and ‘the other’ are homogenised; overlaps and fractures between them are not taken into account. According to Fäcke (2011, p. 178), the concept is based on the assumption of a homogeneous learner group and a culturally coherent subject which does not match today’s hybrid society. Fäcke (2006, p. 37) also criticises that Fremdverstehen does not sufficiently take into consideration ethnicity, socio-political conditions and power relations. In addition, the concept requires a definition of who or what is ‘self’ and ‘foreign’, and the underlying hierarchies (who decides on what) are not always reflected:

Herbert Christ verfolgt mit seiner Argumentation das Ziel, das Gegenüber nicht zum Objekt eines Blicks zu machen, sondern seinen Subjektcharakter zu betonen. Mit diesem Anliegen geht er in die richtige Richtung, jedoch nicht weit genug. Er bedenkt nicht die reale soziale Position der jeweiligen Gegenüber und macht sie zu relativ abstrakten philosophischen Gedankenspielen. Hierarchische Verhältnisse und Machtstrukturen sind in der Vorstellung einer ‘prinzipiell gleichen’ Perspektive nicht berücksichtigt. Blicke von oben nach unten bzw. Blicke von unten nach oben werden in ihrer Unterschiedlichkeit nicht benannt. Auch beantwortet er nicht die Frage nach Fremdverstehen zweier Partner, die einander nicht (!) verstehen wollen. Der Herrschaftscharakter dieses Verstehensprozesses ist in seiner Argumentation verschleiert, denn die Verstehensleistung der Mehrheitsangehörigen ist qualitativ eine andere als die Verstehensleistung der Minderheitenangehörigen. [With his argumentation Herbert Christ aims at not making the other an object of the gaze but emphasising her/his subjectivity instead. This concern takes him in the right direction but not far enough. He does not consider the real social position of the others and turns them into relatively abstract thought experiments. Hierarchical structures and power asymmetries are not taken into consideration in this idea of theoretically even perspectives. There is no mention of the differences arising from the varying viewpoints, be it downwards or upwards. He also does not answer the question concerning the understanding of the other in a situation when the two partners do not (!) want to understand each other. Power asymmetries are concealed in his argumentation because the ability to comprehend a member of the majority is qualitatively different to understanding a member of the minority] (Fäcke, 1999, p. 48; my translation)

Thus, Fäcke sees the danger of appropriation of the foreign and consequently ruling over the foreign by trying to understand it. This line of argument draws on positions in reference disciplines such as poststructuralism, postmodernism and postcolonialism (see Chapter 2.4). Michel Foucault (1977, p. 163), for example, criticises that knowledge serves as a means of control and understanding as a form of injustice:

The historical analysis of this rancorous will to knowledge reveals that all knowledge rests upon injustice (that there is no right, not even in the act of knowing, to truth or a foundation of truth) and that the instinct for knowledge is malicious (something murderous, opposed to the happiness of mankind).

In his seminal book Orientalism, Edward Said (1978) correspondingly points out that we do not understand cultures to learn from them but rather to dominate them. He criticises that the Orient is essentialised as static and underdeveloped by the Occident to justify imperialism.

Hunfeld (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1994), an advocate of sceptical hermeneutics, also warns that an understanding of ‘the other’ is neither always possible nor desirable. He emphasises that literature itself is foreign because it resists quick understanding as a counter-concept of reality and so requires slow reading. He demands the recognition of challenges in the process of understanding (hermeneutic distance) and to acknowledge foreignness as something regular and normal, something which he calls the normalcy of the other (Normalität des Fremden). Hunfeld (1994, p. 97) also warns against an appropriation of the foreign by pointing to the prejudice bias of every individual.

As the exposition of different views in this chapter has shown, the concept of understanding foreignness/otherness is controversially debated in FLT. In response to the publications of the graduate school in Gießen, a heated debate evolved, with references to positions to universalism, ethnocentrism and relativism (Bredella, 1994; Fäcke, 1999; Volkmann, 1999). Today, the question of distance and proximity, and the understanding the foreign without appropriation are still very central in the discourse of cultural learning.