Textbook on the analysis of interpretation patterns and habitus

Prof. Dr. Ute Fischer(Opens in a new tab) , Professor of Political Science, including Social Policy and Social Economics in the Faculty of Applied Social Studies(Opens in a new tab) , has recently published the textbook "Deutungsmuster und Habitus rekonstruieren - Das Deutungsmuster der libertären Selbstbezogenheit bei Gegnern der Corona-Maßnahmen und korrespondierende Habitus" together with Dr. Thomas Loer(Opens in a new tab) . In three questions, she gives an insight into the topics, the reason for the book and outlines what readers can expect.

In qualitative research, especially in the reconstructive analysis of objective hermeneutics, the habitus of the people studied and their patterns of interpretation of certain phenomena are very often at the center of our interest. For example, if we want to understand how they relate to democracy, why some people become radicalized or how job center sanctions affect the work motivation of the long-term unemployed. But the exact procedure for the analysis is not explained in sufficient detail anywhere. The question of how to present page-long analysis protocols in a readable form in a thesis or specialist article also poses major challenges for students and researchers alike. Using the example of our analyses in the textbook, you can understand both the process of discovery and the presentation process. Students or researchers without previous experience with objective hermeneutics need an analysis group despite the book, but the textbook can be an aid for self-organized analysis groups that prepare the analyses independently without a teacher.

We were surprised ourselves that both terms are not as clear as we thought, because originally we did not want to do any conceptual work, but rather make both - habitus and patterns of interpretation - the subject of our concrete analyses with the opponents of the corona measures. However, it soon became clear that Bourdieu's concept of habitus leaves some questions unanswered, such as how exactly one should imagine the generative structure of a habitus and how it becomes effective. With Bourdieu, it remains vague. In our analyses, we have found a complex structure that we refer to as habitus: namely the rules of action that determine the choice of possible courses of action and that a practice follows in each case. The rules of action themselves are produced by a maxim that can be regarded as the core of the habitus.

The pattern of interpretation is even more complex. Initially, we also thought that Ulrich Oevermann - the originator of objective hermeneutics - had offered a clear concept here. In our opinion, our analyses have enabled us to systematically and appropriately take into account the patterned nature of the interpretation pattern for the first time. In a nutshell: Our case analyses show that interpretations that we found in the expressive forms of the cases we examined can be traced back to rules of interpretation. These in turn stem from a key concept and the principles of the rules of interpretation associated with it. If inconsistencies occur between interpretations, which happens very frequently and is particularly interesting for the analyses, it can be shown that the key concept with its principles works precisely in such a way that it masks the inconsistencies. In this way, they are made to disappear, so that the individual does not notice his own contradictions. The totality of these terms listed here in their context - key concept, principles and rules of interpretation - now forms the concept of the pattern of interpretation.

Because analysis can only be learned and demonstrated on the basis of concrete research questions, we have pursued the empirical field of how opponents of the corona measures interpret state action and what habitus their rejection is associated with. After first describing the research process and some of the conceptual and methodological foundations of objective hermeneutics, we defined the object of research. Specifically, the problem of action and interpretation raised by the coronavirus pandemic and the state measures taken to contain it. We then present a detailed analysis of four cases: Two cases based on edited texts (a book and an open letter) and two cases based on research interviews. In the course of the case analyses, we reconstructed the pattern of interpretation of "libertarian self-centeredness" with the key concept of "monadic autonomy" as concrete answers to the research question. It corresponds with different habitus between "exalted self-assertion", "transparent self-exaltation", "idle self-charismatization" and "inanimate practice". Put simply, all four cases focus solely on their own freedom of action without reference to reciprocity and solidarity within the community.