Applied dialectical Method as value-laden

if one takes one's own values as an unproblematical starting point then  the method risks remaining culturally contingent and open to the reinforcement of personal pathology, prejudice, and ignorance

There is a need to unpack, articulate, analyse and examine the underlying values that motivate one's work as part of developing this applied dialectical method as a lesson from phenomenology.

This is for 

Hence, not considering the values issues in the development and testing of this applied dialectical method of conceptualizing human existence through individuals enquiring into and accounting for the way they critically engage with question, how do I lead a more meaningful life and reverse and qualitatively transform my experiences of a dissatisfying life into a more fulfilling and meaningful life for myself? reflectively, dialogically and dialectically (using and fusing contradictions and the tension this amounts to, and cycles of reflections and dialogues to transform their enquiries and accounts), would make the applied dialectical method a value promiscuous one.  This is wherein racists could find it reinforcing their own meanings in life, thereby validating their racism, just as liberal intellectuals would reinforce their own meanings in life, thereby validating their liberal intellectualism. 

Hence testing and developing the applied dialectical method requires the need of explaining and articulating the values the applied dialectical method presupposes. 

When I was  applying and illustrating the method as part of putting it together a solution to the dehumanization of human beings by the existing propositional heuristic tools in the conceptualization and studying of human existence and human beings, I was using the secular, liberal democratic values of a participative democracy for and of all in dignity, humanity, wellbeing, growth and empowerment and equality.  But then these are MY personal and embodied values.  I strongly believe in these values as my values.  They guide my reactions to human rights and political issues and my research and writings. 

They are not the method's values.  Or is it? They are my personal values. 

My values tell me that I cannot impose my values as this contradict my belief in the type of democracy I am talking about and be a form of colonization.  The Americans, under Bush and Reagan, claimed to bring democracy through war and invasion of authoritarian regimes.  It did not work.  So if I say that these liberal values are the method's values then I would be imposing secular and liberal values.

This analysis, scrutiny and problematization is very much  required since saying the method is value-neutral and not value-lade is exactly what a positivist would say about the methods of the natural sciences.  Namely, that the observed and the world are separate from the observing.  Can the observed world be separated and detached from the scientist who observes it? Can a human being have no values?  So my post-positivistic starting point in the 1980s and 1990s, when I said the human being and his/her dignity, humanity, wellbeing and empowerment and growth is the subject and intention of all sciences is being contradicted.

The more I reflect anthropologically on doing my research in Africa and the risk of imposing my enlightened, secular and liberal upper middle class European values the more I see how my questions, concerns and issues are value-laden and values on their own right.  I am terrified of being construed as an elitist progressive European colonist.  Still, my values are embodied in me and are part of me.  They dictate my reactions to what I see as racism, chauvinism , homophobia, xenophobia.  I will betray myself and my ethos and culture if I accept and condone the argument that women are inferior, or other ethnicities, and that same sex partnership should be punished severely.  

My values dictate to me that human dignity and humanity for all is superior to patriotism and nationalism and followers of established religious faith.- which covers disagreements on abortion, euthanasia, gay and women rights and much more.  This sends me to my conflict with many individuals.  Whose values are superior? Whose values should the method follow?

Another question

how do we avoid the partisan assertion of bias (propaganda), self-indulgent solipsism, or the retreat into relativism?

Serious inquiries and problematisation and dialectical tension is required. 

The values question is a very problematic starting point that was not scrutinized and considered enough by the action and practitioner researchers and narrative researchers, auto- ethnographers, personal reflective narratives, qualitative researchers.  What is needed is a hectic and tense discussion that will show that we do take this issue seriously and as a serious problem in our research.