(A). Alon Serper: Depart.
of Education, Univ. of Bath. Bath BA2 7AY. UK Telephone: 44 (0) 1225 463255: Fax: 44 (0) 1225 386113 826113:
E-Mail: a.serper@bath.ac.uk
(B1).
An Ethically-Laden
Heuristic Approach to Ontological Living Theory of An Individual’s
Being-In-The-World
Alon Serper: Department of Education, University of Bath
This ontological
autoethnographical living theory action research account is focused on the question
‘How do I lead a more meaningful, ontologically secured, sustainable,
productive, gratifying, dignifying, fulfilling and contributing existence in,
with and towards the world for myself?’ Answering this question produces living, critical, methodological
and epistemological standards of judgement.
It transforms the traditional heuristic engagements with human existence
into a more living and passionately embodied one that is unusual in academic
discourse because of its anguishing emotional content. It also shifts the focus of the ontology of
living a life-in-the-world into the ethics of leading a more fulfilling,
productive and actualising existence for oneself.
Who Am I: What I Do:
In my work as a Humanistic,
Pragmatist and Gestaltian, constructing critical psychologist of the human
subject, I am trying to have legitimated an innovatively different and
constructively challenging empirical psychology and heuristic approach to the
conceptualisation and analysis of the human subject and human existence. I am talking about my construction of a more
embodied type of post-positivistic human psychology and heuristic tool. I am thinking of a heuristic tool that can methodologically
approach, critically engage with and conceptualise the human subject and human
existence. I show how this can be done by attuning directly with and acting
from within the practice, ontology, phenomenology and ethics of being a human
subject. This is within a wholly
embodied, firsthand and living auto-analysis of a person’s ontology.
My
intention is to show how a critical ontological autoethnographical analysis of
what it means for an embodied person to be him/her and a human
being-in-the-world to transcend the abstractive, intellectual domain and be
directly channelled into living a more meaningful life. By this I mean: The
improvement of the aesthetic, ethical and authentic quality of the concrete,
embodied, living and emerging lives of the individuals who are engaging with my
suggested heuristics of human existence.
This means that the focus of this critical, heuristic and methodological
analysis of what it means to be a human being is on what it means to lead a
[more] productive, meaningful, securing, gratifying, actualising and fulfilling
existence in the world for oneself. As
an ontologist and a psychologist of human existence, by profession, I regard
this ethical concern to be the most important issue in the field of ontology,
namely the meanings of being human and the way to study and critically and
heuristically approach the human subject and human existence.
I regard this practice of
leading the most productive, meaningful, fulfilling, dignifying, contributing,
actualising and gratifying existence in, with and towards the world for
oneself, that one can, to be the most important ethical obligation of a human
being. This is within his/her ontology
of being launched into the world and living himself/herself to death in
it. I regard this
Ontological/Existential experience of being thrown into the world without one’s
permission to involve a self-requirement to make it optimally worthwhile and
significant for oneself.
Self-Rationalising: Why Am I Doing this:
This commitment of mine is derived
from my humanistic criticism of the situation whereby the discipline of
empirical psychology, in particular, and the domains of the social, human and
educational sciences, in general, are conceptualising the human subject and
human existence through and via the intermediaries of propositional theories
and models. By this I am meaning that
the phenomenon of what it means to be human is being critically, heuristically
and methodologically approached, critically analysed and conceptualised through
and in light of propositional theories and models. By the latter I mean theories and models that
are structured, constructed and ontologically, epistemologically and
methodologically defined in accordance with ready-made, pre-set and fixed
conjectures, beliefs, claims and suggestions as to the meanings of being human. It is my firm conviction as a humanistic
psychologist that the result of this situation is the mechanisation,
disembodiment, and alienation of the living, free-willing, autonomous,
concrete, emerging and self-constructing individual. This alienation and disembodiment is from
himself/herself and what is practically important and worthwhile to him/her.
This is namely his/her well-being, needs’ fulfilment and aesthetic, ethical and
authentic quality of living in the world for which, as I said above, he/she has
a foremost ethical obligation.
This
situation, traditionally practiced, positioned and found at the very core of
social science and empirical psychology (Serper, 1999, 2003), entails for me
the reduction of the human subject. This
is from being an embodied, concrete and living being who is struggling and
living in the world in the intention of fulfilling his/her ontological and
ethical needs. For me this means living a more productive, gratifying,
fulfilling, actualising and meaningful existence for myself. As I see and show myself doing this, I engage
with various abstractions, ideas and theories of human existence.
In
my experience, these theories reduce and objectify living, emerging, concrete, autonomous
and self-constructing and self-defining human beings. They transform them,
through their abstract propositional relationships into mechanical, objective,
non-living, disembodied, conceptualising objects and verbal and textual ideas
of the phenomena of human existence and the human subject. As a more appropriate form of theorising
human beings, I am presenting a way of writing about an autonomous being who is
critically and reflexively reflecting within and upon actions, reflections and
interrelationships that I am living. I am living in order to lead this ethical
intention and ontological act of self-development, self-enrichment and the
ethical understanding of leading a more gratifying and fulfilling existence in
the world for myself. I am talking about
a human subject that as a humanistic psychologist I conceptualise to be a human
being who is constructing, defining and transforming himself/herself in
accordance with this mode of self-construction.
I am talking about the reduction of
this living and self-constructing being into abstractions that incline to
conceptualise himself/herself and his/her meanings of being him/her. By these abstractions I mean ideas that have
been and are still constructed, established and entertained by different
disembodied models and schools of thought in the discipline and domains that I
am criticising as a humanistic critical psychologist. A person, for me, is a
self-constructing and self-defining being who is continuously constructing
himself/herself and his/her actions for the sake of self-enriching
himself/herself and his/her existence and auto-transforming them, within
auto-poiesis, into and for the sake of a more productive and more actualising
existence in the world and within one’s own actions, ontology and ethics.
In my desire and overwhelming
ontological and ethical need to establish a constructive critique of the
situation that I am concerned about as a humanistic psychologist, I have
transformed my practice through constructive critique. By constructive critique, I am meaning a need
to introduce, embody and exemplify a challenging heuristic approach to human
existence and the human subject that I have intentionally constructed for the
task of showing and living out my meanings to my colleagues. I am meaning a heuristic tool and approach
that would be living and fully subscribing to my theoretical critique of the
disembodied and wholly propositional conceptualisation of empirical psychology
and the social, human and educational sciences of the human subject and human
existence. Rather than producing a
theoretical, abstractive, textual and propositional critique of this situation
or absurdly complaining from within this type of critique about the
propositional logic that is completely dominating the field and my area of
commitment (Whitehead and McNiff, 2006), I will show and analyse my personal
transformation.
By
my transformation I mean that anguishing one from being an established, secured
and legitimated propositional critical psychologist (Serper, 1999, 2003) into
being an Ontological Living Theory Action Researcher. By the former I mean a researcher who is
critiquing the field of empirical psychology, and its heuristic approach to the
conceptualisation of the human subject and human existence, through
systematically showing within the context of a textual analysis review of the
entire history of the discipline (Serper, 1999) its reductionist, positivistic
and mechanistic flaws. By the latter I
mean an individual who is committed to the heuristic, critical and
methodological analysis of his own embodied well-being, self-fulfilment and
self-actualisation and in turn the type of ethical obligation I described
above. This is as I am living and
practicing my own concrete, embodied, living, transforming and emerging
existence, my being/becoming-in-the-world, and my leading it in, with and
towards the world. This is in the
intention of leading it productively, meaningfully and gratifyingly within a
dignifying, ontologically securing and sustaining manner. One that is intended for me to enrich my own
well-being, my own integrity and dignity, my own mission of self-actualising my
ontological, epistemological and ethical needs and to be able to sufficiently
critically, empirically and phenomenologically engage, comprehend and
conceptualise these living/lived experiences of mine so as to push them
forwards and develop them. I call this
transformation anguishing as it is by no means easy to publicly reflect and
heuristically analyse one’s angst, existential void and despair within an
intention to improve one’s Existential meaning, well-being and hope for one’s
future, a better one. In between my
wholly theoretical/philosophical engagement and mode of practice and that
living action research one, I have tried an empirical social science one that
has prompted my move into living action research logic and mode of practice.
Using anguising as a living educational standard of judgement is not usual in
academic texts. It is my contention that this is a limitation in existing
academic texts rather than a living standard that should be eliminated from
academic discourse. In saying this I am mindful of Lyotard’s point:
“A postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the
text he writes, the work he produces are not in principle governed by
pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining
judgement, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work. Those
rules and categories are what the work of art itself is looking for. The artist
and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules
of what will have been done. (Lyotard, p. 81, 1984).”
Methodology:
In
what follows I should like to present to you an ontological, autoethnographical
living theory action research account.
One that endeavours to transform my above account and its meanings into
a more living, embodied and ontological self-developing (auto-poietic) type of
analysis and analytic conceptualisation. I wish to conceptualise the meanings
of my current practice, as I create myself within what I am doing. This is from within the very heuristic tool
that I wish to introduce and advocate here through living and exemplifying it. This means that this type of critical
heuristic analysis of my being/becoming-in-the-world is directly practiced from
within my own sense of embodied well-being. I am thinking here of the critical,
experiential, systematic, methodological and heuristic analysis of my embodied
well-being. I am thinking of my well-being in terms of my ontological security,
self-gratification, integrity, self-actualisation and needs’ fulfilment. I am talking about an individual who is
passionately committed to the creation, communicating and legitimacy of this
heuristic approach and tool and who is currently ontologically and ethically
defining himself/myself in accordance with the success of this project. This is in terms of my well-being,
self-gratification, self-fulfilment and self-actualisation in the world, my
hopes and aspirations for my future and my past achievements and successes and
learning from my failures and mistakes.
Brief Reflective Ethical Autoethnographical Account
At the moment I am trying
to exemplify to you a specific idea and a great passion and commitment of
mine. This is what I am presently doing
and am wishing to do well, productively, constructively, gratifyingly and
meaningfully. My present occupation and
practice is the advocacy of the following question to my Action and
Practitioner Researchers, Ontologists and critical Psychologists colleagues and
peers - How do I lead a more meaningful,
ontologically secured, sustainable, productive, gratifying, dignifying,
fulfilling and contributing existence in, with and towards the world for
myself? I am presently wholly
committed and am completely and utterly devoting my entire existence, self and
practice in the world to the ambition of having this question and my answer
legitimated as a significant contribution to the studying of the phenomena of
being-in-the-world; its embodied meanings and modes of critically and
authentically approaching it and them, heuristically analysing, conveying and
conceptualising it and them for oneself and others. It is not an easy existence. And yet it is a wholly challenging and
ambitious one and in turn a rewarding one, with Existential meaning,
self-fulfilment and self-gratification.
As it is what I am doing, viewing valuable and am passionate about, I am
wishing to do it productively and within a fulfilling fashion.
I am doing what I am doing
as a zealous humanistic psychologist and Existential thinker who is inclining
to practice psychology and Ontology within values that are attuned with my
own. With all the Social Constructionist
ideas that have dominated the shift from positivistic psychology to
post-positivistic psychology, I have never abandoned my passion in regards to
the classic humanistic values of the 1950s and 1960s that have centred around
the autonomy, distinctiveness, complete personal agency, free-will and constant
transformation and self-constructing transformations from birth to death of the
individual. Whilst moving towards those
Social Constructionist ideas and research methodologies and heuristic tools
would make my life as a critical, post-positivistic psychologist (Serper, 1999)
much easier and would push forwards my career development much more quickly, I
experience reservations that doing so would clash with my values and integrity
and severely affect and jeopardise the feeling that I am living and practicing
my life, my career and vocation in accordance with what I believe in and am
passionate about. This in turn would
affect my feeling that I am leading the most gratifying, fulfilling and
self-actualising existence and practice that I can for myself. It would lead to my feeling of an existential
void and disappointment and non-fulfilment with what I am doing and the
direction that I have taken in my life and vocational practice.
I carry out this above
preoccupation, practice and critical engagement of mine as a humanistic,
constructing critical psychologist of the human subject who has been
passionately struggling and wrestling for many years with the following issues
of concern:
First, how do I transcend,
within ostensive, real-life, concrete and living action, from and move beyond
the traditional abstractions and the alienation, mechanisation and
disembodiment of the human subject of, by and within my field, empirical
psychology?
Second, how do I move into
and achieve a more concrete, applicable, ostensive, embodied and living form of
heuristic, critical and methodological engagement with the human subject that
is still critical, structured, systematic and methodological?
These are my main issues of
concern that are guiding my work, practice, passion, values and research
enquiries.
I have
grown increasingly disappointed and uncomfortable from those post-positivistic
innovations in the discipline. Having
been pleased by the use of qualitative and post-Cartesian heuristic tools, I
could not but feel that those post-positivistic psychologies have led the
psychologies of human existence and their heuristic tools to wholly engage with
and centre around human relationships and interrelationships. This is just as their positivistic
counterparts and rivals have been centring themselves around immediate mental
experiences (Mentalist psychology; e.g., Wundt; Ebbinghaus; James); overt
behaviour (Behaviouristic Psychology; e.g., Watson; Skinner; Tolman) and
cognition (Representational Cognitive Psychology; e.g., Pylyshyn, Nisbett
and Wilson; Miller) and have been reducing the studying of the human
subject into propositional heuristic models, human entities and heuristic tools
that are devoted to these entities instead of the whole, unique, embodied and
living human subject (Serper, 1999).
This, indeed, has been consistent with my long-termed and passionately
held position as a propositional thinker and researcher, advocating a more holistic,
living and embodied psychology, one which would begin with an integrated,
living and embodied model of human existence, rather than seeking to compose
the whole from the disembodied, abstractive and wholly propositional
parts. I am talking about a position
that I have advocated, pleaded for and argued in my critical, historical,
textual analysis, review of empirical psychology from a Humanistic, Pragmatist,
phenomenological and Gestaltian position (Serper, 1999). I am feeling very strongly and passionately
about it. But having said that, I really
want to transform myself from being a propositional thinker and scholar into a
dialectic and living action research one.
This is as I realise the absurdity of critiquing solely with the use of
propositional logic by using and drawing on it in the critique.
Still, my
professional training indicated that this propositional logic is academia and
the sole correct meaning of scholarship, critical heuristics, rigour and
discipline. I was stuck, frustrated,
despairing but kept trying. My
saturation from the wholly-philosophical/theoretical practice of analysing text
and wholly abstractive/philosophical ideas and my desire to work with real-life
human beings and human participants has led me to social science and empirical
psychology work, using and analysing both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Yet, I, then, became dissatisfied and ungratified by the idea of still dealing
with propositional ideas, claims, suggestions and propositions in regards to
human existence and its meanings. This
is rather than directly approaching and dealing with the actual, living,
embodied and transforming human existence and human beings. I have found myself being completely sucked
into the logic of doing empirical research work in order to bring evidence in
support of an abstraction, a proposition, a claim, an hypothesis. I have felt and seen how the concrete and
living human subject, that I intended to approach and with whose pain,
well-being, despair, self-gratification, aspirations, successes and failures I
sincerely wished to attune to and engage with, is being reduced and sucked into
theories and propositions. Propositions
and theories of whom he/she is, how to heuristically approach, study,
conceptualise, treat and convey him/her.
I became
frustrated, angry, ungratified and infuriated.
I felt that I am not living my life as productively, meaningfully and
gratifyingly as I can and in turn not enjoying the optimal well-being,
aesthetic, ethical and authentic quality of existence, ontological security,
integrity, meaning, self-respect and self-actualisation which I am capable of.
I needed a psychology that could include this anguishing content of an
individual’s existence.
My social science practice
has meant for me that instead of directly dealing with the embodied well-being,
passions and experiences of concrete, embodied and emerging living individuals
in real-world, real-life situations, within an intention to enable them
increase the value of their existence for themselves - I had to critically and
heuristically submit myself to and engage with disembodied ideas and
propositions of who they are, as placed, put together and claimed by distanced,
disembodied, theoreticians, empiricists and practitioners, including myself,
who have endeavoured and vowed to keep distance, disembodiment and objectivity
and not get involved emotionally, tacitly, and actively in and with what they
study. And what they study, to the great
absurdity, is human ontological experiences. This is as part of the accepted
and established traditional view in the field, inherited from Positivism and
the natural/physical science and natural philosophy, in regards to the meaning
of good, critical, structured, meaningful, contributing, productive and
unbiased, academic, heuristic and scholarly research.
At this point, I could not
have taken it anymore. It was simply too
much for me to bear. I was furious,
angry and sick to my stomach. I lost any
belief and hope that what I have been doing is contributing to the
re-humanisation of empirical research into the conceptualisation of the human
subject and human existence. By
re-humanisation I am meaning dealing with and working and researching from
within the embodied phenomenon of human existence and the embodied, living
practice of leading it and living it as meaningfully, productively and
gratifyingly as one can. Something that any human subject/being feels, doing,
reflecting on and experiencing as part of his/her ontology and essence of being
human. This is rather than from within the
abstraction of what it is like as suggested and defended by the distanced,
disembodied empirical psychologists who are traditionally considered as the
distanced professional experts and the critical, evaluating scientists. I was indeed angry and deeply concerned about
representing within these abstractions the human subject I perceived myself to
be.
I then faced the choice and
dilemma of pursuing with propositional type of research, that no longer fulfils
me and means anything for me, for the sake of my career development -
publishing, presenting, advancing in the academic hierarchy, getting tenure,
senior lectureship, professorship - whilst neglecting my greatest passion,
ideology, strongly-held standpoint and critique. I could not live a lie. I felt my existence would not be as fulfilled
as it could be. I felt my contribution
to my field and my subject of interest and fascination would not be as
significant, productive and worthwhile as it could have been. I have become aware of, begun studying thoroughly
and critically and commenced my transformation into Action Research and its
Living Theory approach and into being an Action Researcher and Living Action
Researcher.
I moved there. This meant moving
from a very secured and securing environment and niche, a field that I knew
well, individuals that I knew well and felt at ease with, an established field
and a tradition and underpinning that I have been trained in and gained a
reputation in. It meant moving to a wholly
different academic discipline from the one I was accustomed to, was trained in
and felt at ease with and with its leading practitioners. It meant moving into an area and domains that
have challenged the very bases of my original field and my training. It meant doing exactly the opposite of what I
have been trained and told to do, even contradicting what my trainers, peers,
colleagues and supervisors, whom I admired very much, was fond of and
politically needed expected me to do. I felt completely unrecognised in threats
that they would cut all contact with me and would have my research and academic
positions terminated if I insisted on pursuing this. I identified with
Whitehead’s (1993) living educational theory conveying how he has encountered a
similar lack of recognition and disciplinary power relations in his workplace.
I identified with Lyotard’s (1984, p, 64) analysis of the intellectual
terrorism that can eliminate a legitimate player from a language game in the
Academy. I identified with Said’s (1994) analysis of cultural and imperialism
as he showed how particular narratives can be used to sustain colonial power
relations.
Still,
for the first time, I have begun treating, approaching and conceptualising my
subject of interest, fascination and devotion in the heuristic manner that I
have been taking to be the most suitable, productive, contributing and
significant for myself. I feel fully and
completely attuned to and gratified and pleased with what I am doing now.
Now, I am hoping to convey
what I perceive as the importance of my constructed heuristics of human
existence for the critical engagement and understanding of my peers and
colleagues. This is in the aspiration of
achieving legitimacy as a heuristic approach and tool in academic research into
human beings and human existence.
Constructing it for myself no longer gratifies and fulfils me. I feel I have done and achieved this. I now wish to have it legitimated and to
pursue with it as a legitimated tool and approach. This is what currently fulfils and gratifies
me and what gives meaning, productivity and ontological security and
gratification to my professional practice and being/becoming-in-the-world. I am here doing what I am doing and
introducing to you this heuristics of mine as a way to achieve this. This is for
the development, improvement, complementation and enrichment of my field of
practice, what I am doing, and my existence and its aesthetic, ethical and
authentic quality in, with and towards the world. Not doing and achieving this would be a
horrific waste for me and all my huge efforts, struggles, personal hardships
and difficulties, utter determination, stubbornness and zealous commitment,
forcing myself to continue though every fibre of my being-in-the-world shout at
me to stop this utter masochism. This
would lead to a most horrific case of self-disappointment, existential void,
despair, self-disgust, non-gratification and utter ontological insecurity and
instability, indignity and Existential dread.
I therefore must do it in a way that authentically acknowledges this
anguishing. I must have my passion, my
constructed heuristic solution, approach and tool introduced in the most
coherent, communicable, convincing and well-structured manner that I can. I must do whatever I can to have it publicly
introduced and legitimated. Only then, I
am now feeling, I would be experiencing true self-actualisation, true
self-fulfilment, true empowerment and true meaning and productivity with what I
am presently doing. And in turn true well-being, integrity, dignity,
ontological security and sustainability and truly leading a fulfilling
aesthetic, ethical and authentic quality of life, existence and
being/becoming-in-the-world for myself.
1.Lyotard, F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge. Manchester; Manchester University Press.
2.Said, E. (1994). Representations
of the Intellectual; The 1993 Reith Lect. Vintage. Lond.
3. Serper, A.
(1999). A Study of the Conception of Man
in Empirical Psychology by Using Textual Analysis. Unpublished Thesis. The Hebrew University.
Jerusalem
4. Serper, A. (2003). Self-Reflexive Accounts As
Post-positivistic Heuristic Tools for the Questions of the Human Subject and
the Human Existence in the World.
Paper presented at the Int. Conf. of Crit. Psych. University of Bath, 31st
of August, 2003.
5. Whitehead, J. (1993). The
Growth of Educational Knowledge; Creating Your Own Living. Educational Theories.
Hyde. Bournmouth.
6.
Whitehead, J. and McNiff, J. (2006). Living Theory Action Research. Sage. London.
For further correspondence please contact Alon
Serper: a.serper@bath.ac.uk
B2. Format (paper) PRESENTATIONS
Title:
How do I lead a
more meaningful, ontologically secured, sustainable, productive, gratifying,
dignifying, fulfilling and contributing existence in, with and towards the
world for myself? An Ethically-Laden Heuristic Approach to the Construction of
an Ontological Living Theory of An Individual’s Being/Becoming-In-The-World
Name:
Alon Serper
Brief
biographical sketch:
The author is a
humanistic psychologist who has transformed from Critical Psychology to
Ontological, Autoethnographical Living Theory Action Research in the intention
of constructing and introducing to the academic discourses a more humanistic,
living, engaging, Gestaltian and embodied psychology and heuristics of human
existence. He is trying to have this
innovative and challenging heuristic approach of his legitimated in the
academy. And in turn to make the academy more attuned with the concrete,
applied/applicable, real-world, real-life, situations and the meanings of being
a real-life, embodied, living, emerging and transforming person, facing,
dealing and coping as hard as he can with real-life, real-world situations. At the moment, he is trying to have it
legitimated as a Doctor of Philosophy degree at the University of Bath; a
Doctor of Philosophy being the most rigid and formal form of academic
acceptance and legitimacy and therefore a true challenge of the type that is
stimulating the author and making him feeling meaning in his life.
Complete description of
content:
A challenging and constructively critical
heuristic approach to the conceptualisation of the human subject and human
existence, in general, and to constructing Ontological living theory accounts,
in particular, is described and exemplified in real life action and
action-reflection.
Incorporation of conference
theme and relevance to identified track:
It is a heuristic approach that
endeavours to push Ontology, Action Research and the Pragmatist
conceptualisation of and the analysis of the self into ethics and ethical
understandings. This is within practical, concrete, ostensive, living,
emerging, embodied and transforming situations in the real-world.
Application of content to practice:
I am presenting a living
autoethnographical account that both discusses and exemplifies how I act out
and implement this above propositional claim that I have just made and
rationalises it within a critical re-evaluation of the current situation in the
field of which I am critical, to which I sincerely should like to contribute
and of which I should like to complement, push forwards and develop.
Description of how you intend
to engage and involve the audience:
Evoke them in my embodied
passion. This work is my life’s project
to which I am very much committed. The
passion is well-evident and is flowing from me when I talk about it.
Description of handouts:
N-A
Explanation of what participants will
learn by attending the session:
They will learn that there is another way to heuristically conceptualise the human subject and human existence in the academic world than the wholly propositional traditional heuristic tools in social science (Whitehead and McNiff, 2006). They will learn the power of the self as a concrete, passionate, embodied and living ethical and reflective/reflexive being.
C. Session Classification:
A half an hour paper
presentation of a theoretician/ethician.
D. Session Requirements:
I shall need:
LCD projector
Table podium with microphone