There is a familiar expectation when one turns to theory: that it will eventually yield a method. A set of steps. A procedure that, if followed with sufficient care, will produce results—analyses that are correct, or at least defensible in a recognisable way.
This expectation will not be satisfied here.
Not because rigour is being abandoned, but because the expectation itself rests on a misunderstanding of what analysis is. It presumes that there is something there, already formed, awaiting examination; and that the analyst stands apart from it, equipped with tools adequate to the task. Method, in this sense, is a technology of access: a way of getting at what is already the case.
But if meaning is not something that exists independently of construal—if there is no phenomenon prior to the distinctions through which it is brought forth—then this entire picture begins to unravel.
There is no pre-given object of analysis.
There is no neutral vantage point from which such an object could be observed.
And there is no procedure that could guarantee that different analysts, following the same steps, would arrive at the same thing—because there is no “same thing” to arrive at prior to the act of analysis itself.
What, then, becomes of method?
Analysis as Actualisation
To analyse is not to uncover what is already there. It is to actualise a particular configuration of potential.
This is not a temporal claim. Analysis does not take something latent and bring it into being over time. Rather, it is a shift in perspective: a cut through a field of possible distinctions, in which a phenomenon emerges as this rather than that.
The “text” one analyses is not an object that precedes this cut. It is the outcome of it.
Different analyses do not offer competing views of the same phenomenon. They enact different phenomena.
This is the point at which the language of method begins to fail. For method presumes repeatability: that the same steps, applied to the same object, will yield the same result. But if the object itself is constituted in and through the analytic act, then repeatability cannot mean reproduction of a result. At most, it can mean the possibility of reconstrual under sufficiently aligned conditions.
The Illusion of Procedure
The appeal of procedure is obvious. It promises stability.
Follow these steps:
- Identify the object
- Apply the framework
- Produce the analysis
Each step appears to rest on something given: the object is there; the framework is available; the outcome is a function of correct application.
But each step conceals a decision.
- What counts as the object is not given; it is cut out from a continuum of potential.
- What counts as the framework is not neutral; it privileges certain distinctions over others.
- What counts as the result is not discovered; it is the stabilisation of one construal among many that might have been actualised.
Procedure obscures these decisions by presenting them as steps. It converts acts of construal into operations on an object.
The cost of this conversion is high: the analyst disappears from the analysis, and with them, the very conditions under which the phenomenon has been constituted.
Rigour Without Method
If method, understood as procedure, is untenable, does anything like rigour remain?
Yes—but it must be relocated.
Rigour does not consist in following steps correctly. It consists in maintaining consistency of construal across the analysis.
This means:
- the distinctions one makes must cohere with one another
- the movement between levels (from potential to instance, across strata) must be disciplined
- the analysis must remain accountable to the system of meanings within which it operates
What it cannot mean is correspondence to a reality independent of construal. There is no such tribunal to which the analysis could appeal.
This is not relativism. Not anything goes. On the contrary: the constraints are internal, systemic, and unforgiving. An incoherent construal collapses under its own weight. A disciplined one holds—not because it matches the world, but because it sustains itself as a configuration of meaning.
What Follows
If there is no procedure, there is still practice.
The question is no longer:
“What steps should I follow to analyse this?”
It becomes:
“What distinctions must be drawn for this phenomenon to emerge—and what follows from drawing them this way rather than another?”
The posts that follow will not provide a toolkit. They will stage a series of analyses, each making its cuts explicit, each showing how different construals actualise different phenomena.
The aim is not to teach a method.
It is to make visible what method conceals.
No comments:
Post a Comment