Friday 16 November 2012

Can this be True? …



It seems on face value, perfectly reasonable to conceive of asking questions to get at the truth. When reading or watching TV I often think ‘is that true?’ ‘what is the truth behind that?’ and I’m sure you probably do to.
But what do we mean when we seek the truth in something? Does truth equate to Factualness? Or authenticity? Or righteousness?  Or other measures?
I pretty much think the notion of ‘truth’ is very difficult to handle in research that has a social basis (like a professional enquiry that seeks insights relating to professional practice as a social entity). This may be because truth is partly founded in the notion that something can be understood as factually correct. Now that is fine in the natural sciences (e.g. physics, biology, chemistry etc.) because the natural sciences seek to test empirically the basis of any fact statements. So for example, from a natural science perspective, we can be completely positive in stating that the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection is true. It is established, scientific fact. But it is important to note that it may be true as a scientific fact, yet fail as a theological (social) truth. Within particular theological conceptions, Natural Selection is not true because it does not agree with particular theological teachings. Illogical as it might seem, when operating within certain religious contexts, Natural Selection is untrue.
Within professional practice, we seek to use social scientific methods to explain the human condition and experience. In doing so we recognise that any explanation is contingent on the particular social, cultural, political, economic, geographical and historical context that the experience exists within. To say there are underpinning ‘truths’ is to grip the experiences too tightly, squeezing out the relevance and meaning that comes from the situations in which the experiences occur.
So perhaps we should not ask whether something is ‘true’. But rather ask ‘what different possible accounts can we give for a particular phenomena?’ and ‘to what extent do we think one or more of these explanations is useable or worthwhile within a specific context?’ In making these assertions, we may seek underlying features (we call these generalisations) however in a great deal of social science research, absolute generalisable rules have to live alongside other features such as relevance of knowledge in a particular context.
The tighter and more specific the focus of our questions, the more we can block out the noise from all the different situations and contexts in which our questions could be posed and that would lead to different responses.
When we ask ‘What is the best way to teach Ballet’ we carry notions of absolute truths. The question starts with the premise that there is actually only one ‘best way’. The question ignores the range of situations, places, times, cultures, age groups etc. in which ballet may be taught.
Better perhaps to ask ‘In this very specific given situation, what different approaches to teaching Ballet produce what effects?’


You may like to view my previous Blog on the-art-of-asking that relates to this post.

3 comments:

  1. Brings to mind Pilot jokingly asking Jesus, "What is Truth?" Surely Truth can only be as we perceive it....? We can only form our ideas of Truth from our own experiences? We have to attempt to broaden our concepts and try 'to walk in another man's moccasins' but how far do we go? Did Hitler think his ideas were truth?? Can we only depend on our conscience or our inner voice? In fact 'to thine own self be true...etc....' very bewildering really!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very interesting post, Alan, I can really relate to the 'best way to teach ballet' because I remember at school I had many different teachers from different backgrounds and they were alway arguing which was the best method. In reality, all styles and methods helped me as the career of a dancer is flexible and varied, not all choreographers want to have dancers from one 'style' or 'method' as it can be restrictive. a fusion of styles is often the most interesting solution.
    Looking for the 'truth' behind my inquiry has shown me that there are so many sides to the effects of the budget cuts in dance, and that at the beginning of my research I could only see one perspective, the dancers. After performing my research I have found several 'truths.'

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alicia, I doubt a fusion of styles would be Balletically ideal! What are we understanding by style here? Bournonville for La Sylphide? The Imperial Russian for Swan Lake? We have to cherish style or we lose the quality and intention of movement in each Ballet. If we, by style, mean RAD, ISTD then I think they have all miss the boat as training methods. They have wandered away from the basic principles, the basic truths, of movement. They argue about what they do with their extremities, what positions they make, instead of regarding the Dancer's body as a Physical entity traveling through space. In this regard there are the certain inescapable universal truths of the material world. If I hold back on my linking step I shall propel myself like a catapult into the air. Though we do know even these material truths are susceptible to the Chaos theory where they are 'true' only 99% of the time which ensures a continued process of change!

    ReplyDelete