And you as an interviewee will react on me as an interviewer.
I'm active, maybe you'll be active, as well.
You think, well, he's from Amsterdam, so he thinks about drugs, something.
So you're reacting on me in the interview.
So your accounting, your memory's probably not so good.
And you are reacting on the interviewer.
And then fourthly, there's a more fundamental point.
And that is, well, can we grasp external reality language?
Can we really grasp emotions in language?
Or do we need other forms, theater, dance, and so on?
So is an interview, then, the best way to grasp emotions?
Maybe not, maybe it is.
Or, and let's put it even more fundamental, more on an ontological level,
aren't we constructing the social world through language?
So in an interview, aren't we totally constructing the world out there
rather than describing it?
If you followed this critique,
then you would come to see the interview in a different way.
Not the interview as a tunnel, but more of a topic, the interview as topic.
And then, the purpose of the interview is slightly different.
Again, it's about as much information as possible,
as specific information as possible, and
as useful information as possible, but not on something outside the interview.
But on the interview itself.