|
|
Overview
How do
we escape our current viewpoint and see a piece of literature
as its author intended? We can't: our views are always bound
up with our present concerns, just as those concerns are themselves
coloured by past traditions. Hermeneutics began as the science
of interpreting ancient documents, making a consistent picture
when the parts themselves drew their meaning from the document
as a whole, but has grown important to Postmodernism and literature
in general. Note here the struggle of artistic creation: the
continual adjustment and readjustment of concept with medium,
and of individual views with wider social truths.
Introduction
Though
hermeneutics came to prominence with the work of Hans-Georg
Gadamer, a pupil of Heidegger's, we need to go back to Schliermacher
to understand its aims and methods. In the difficult task of
deciphering ancient manuscripts, Friedrich Schliermacher (1768-1834)
{1} came to realize that one needed to get beneath
the plain understanding of a document and divine something of
its author: his insights, prejudices, reasons for writing. In
each part of the document the author was obviously represented.
To make a fully-rounded character, each represented part had
therefore to be assembled into an internally consistent whole,
and this whole checked with the constituent parts a continual
adjustment and readjustment that constitutes the hermeneutic
circle. Schliermacher suggested various approaches, but it fell
to his admirer Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) {2}
to offer more objective ways of doing this, and of interpreting
the human sciences at large. Mindful of both Kant and Hegel's
work, Dilthey first drew a line between science and the humanities.
Science aimed to explain, and did so by recognizing laws exterior
and indifferent to man: invariant, mathematical, ahistorical.
The humanities aimed to understand, and retained what was relevant
to the individual man: his life experiences, affections, character,
social and historical setting.
How could
such understanding be objective, or at least methodical? The
matter came to a head with Carl Hempel's 1942 article: The
Function of General Laws in History. {3}
True to its Logical Positivist spirit, Hempel's article denied
Dilthey's distinction and argued that causal laws should operate
in history, i.e. deep in enemy territory. Professional historians
{4} were quick to point out the difficulties,
theoretical and practical, but the notion persisted that understanding
in the humanities (and this included aesthetics and sociology)
must be causal if it was to be more than fanciful reconstruction.
Analytical
Hermeneutics
Now it
is perfect possible to construct a logic to span the two worlds
of scientific explanation and cultural understanding, at least
in limited areas like historical or sociological explanation.
Georg Henrik von Wright's logic of action {5}
(not to be confused with his deontic logic) employs cause and
effect and distinguishes sufficient from necessary conditions.
The logic, set out in Explanations and Understanding
(1971) and Causality and Determinism (1974), is quite
straightforward: a two-valued propositional logic with tense
modifiers. A sufficient condition means that p will be followed
by q. A necessary condition means that q has been proceeded
by p. This simple expedient (the sufficient is not the necessary
turned around, and one does not imply the other) eliminates
the need for overarching historical laws, which are unwieldy
and probably unworkable. Sufficient conditions tell us something
is bound to happen. Necessary conditions tell us how an event
is possible. Beneath events lies this logic, latent as it were,
ready to operate when opportunity arises. The Archduke Ferdinand
is assassinated at Sarajevo. Austria issues an ultimatum. Serbia
hesitates. Russia feels threatened and starts mobilizing. Strengthened
by the expectation of Russian support, Serbia defies the ultimatum.
Encouraged by Germany, Austria declares war on Serbia. The first
world war starts. Unforeseen developments satisfy the necessary
conditions and push events in directions not covered by the
sufficient conditions.
Von Wright's
logic does not legislate for all areas of action. But nor is
it psychological, depending on intuitions of correctness. That
understanding is a form of life, and a social form of life at
that, is the essence of another logic. In his 1958 book Idea
of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, Peter
Winch {6} proposed a logic that rises out of
and is made intelligible by society. After all, Winch argues,
understanding other people is not based on sympathy but on knowledge
and expectations on rules, in short, which the sociologist
attempts to understand and assess. Of course we do not generally
think of logic in this way, nor recognize a "grammar of societies",
but that is our shortcoming, a cultural limitation of our Anglo-Saxon
thought patterns.
Hans-Georg
Gadamer
Though
von Wright and Winch do fashion a bridge between continental
and Anglo-American analytical philosophies, fundamental differences
remain. Generally the analytical schools describe where the
continentals prescribe, i.e. remain academic where the continentals
embrace social causes. Differing schools of philosophy represent
for Anglo-Americans just different choices in the starting presuppositions,
about which nothing can be done: the reason cannot be "grounded"
further. In contrast, the continentals do wish to ground their
philosophies further in language and the continuance
of the historical past (Gadamer) or labour and shared expression
(Habermas) or cultural artifacts and shared ways of understanding
(Ricouer). {7}
Gadamer,
{8} for instance, takes issue with the prevailing
Enlightenment view that man would live happily and at peace
if old prejudices and superstitions were swept away. Inevitably,
if only in part, we live on our historical inheritance, in a
dialogue between the old traditions and present needs. And there
is no simple way to assess that inheritance except by trial
and error: praxis: living out its precepts and their possible
reshapings. Rationality of the scientific or propositional kind
is something we should be wary of. It evades what seems to Gadamer
important: our direct apperception of reality, the "truth that
finds us". But if the flow of existence is a continuing disclosure
of meanings, {9} how are we to recognize these
meanings and know they are correct?
Gadamer
asks us to think of the law courts, where rulings represent
not rubber-stamped social conventions but a process of continuing
refinement and modification as the old rulings meet difficulties
the hermeneutic adjustment between particular and general.
Validity comes from a communality of practice and purposes,
not by reference to abstract theory. Similar considerations
apply to aesthetics, a field notoriously resistant to objective
approaches. Artworks are not only bearers of the self-image
and moral dimensions of the society that produces them, but
a product of the resistance exerted by the individual circumstances
of creation to wider truths. And these wider truths are the
truths inherent in society, what it lives by, explicitly or
not. The natural world may be beautiful, as Kant acknowledged,
but an artwork includes the play of the mental faculties of
the artist concerned, its own kind of truth, therefore, which
Kant did not acknowledge.
Experience,
said Dilthey, involves immediacy and totality. Immediacy gives
meaning without ratiocination. Totality requires the meanings
have sufficient weight and significance to unify the myriad
moments of a person's life. {10} Dilthey was
talking about historical experience, but both factors apply
to artworks. In place of Kant's appeal to the synthesizing role
of individual judgement, Dilthey appealed through individual
creations to concerns of the community at large, even if these
concerns were to be verified by the narrow procedures of the
natural sciences. Gadamer urges a wider concept of verification,
for which he turns to games. Games have autonomy: they absorb
the players, and have rules and a structures of their own. Art
similarly absorbs both artist and viewer. Also like games, art
does not permit unlimited free expression. The "right"
representation has to be respected "right"
for the medium, and also representing something lasting and
true, self-verifying though not self-evident, perduring through
the changing circumstances of a man's life, showing itself in
continually being re-experienced. "Right" does not
come about through pouring effort into a certain conception
of art, nor in slavishly following certain rules, but something
which emerges in the hermeneutical struggle of artistic creation,
the continual adjustment and readjustment of concept with medium,
and of individual view with the wider social truths. {11}
Artworks,
like historical documents, are creations of a certain time and
place. As such, they are replete with the presuppositions (the
prejudices as Gadamer calls them) of those circumstances. How
can we filter out these prejudices, and ensure we do not replace
them with prejudices of our own? We cannot, says Gadamer. We
must allow the two sets of prejudices to confront each other,
when we shall find a meaning is disclosed which often goes beyond
what the originator of the artwork intended. Doubtless there
will be ambiguities, inconsistencies, particularly with a major
thinker. But these hermeneutic adjustments of our own
presuppositions with those of the author or artist are
unavoidable, and indeed essential. They make interpretation
and appreciation an ongoing act of understanding, a enlargement
of ourselves through a fusing of horizons.
Like Heidegger,
Gadamer sees language as the house of Being. He is also pleased
with Wittgenstein's picture of language as social games. Through
playing (i.e. using language) we acquire an understanding of
the world. And that applies to any language. It is the learning
process which is important: it mimics and provides an exemplar
for human experience. And whereas Habermas sees language as
a sedimented ideology, full of undisclosed corruptions and prejudices
that analysis must bring to light, Gadamer finds these corruptions
and prejudices as constitutive of understanding. There is no
language free of them. Nor can we get outside language to some
purer mode of understanding. No doubt words mirror objects imperfectly,
but it is on their multiple reflecting surfaces that truth become
visible. {12}
Jürgen
Habermas
It was
the review by Jürgen Habermas (born 1929) of Gadamer's
Truth and Meaning, and the extended debate which followed,
which brought hermeneutics to widespread notice. The two thinkers
have much in common, but Habermas was a Marxist colleague of
Adorno at Frankfurt, and saw tradition as a distortion of the
human spirit. He stressed the liberating function of communication
far more than Gadamer would allow, and has been tireless in
freeing Marxism from Stalinist corruption, and in battling against
the nihilism of Poststructuralism. {13}
Though
the Frankfurt school has traditionally been empiricist, Habermas
criticized the rationality of science as effectively placing
judgement in the hands of specialists, an undemocratic procedure.
Man is entitled to his freedoms from material want, from
social exclusion, and from perversions that alienate him from
himself {14} Thus his interest in Marxism, not
to justify Marxist prophecies, but to rationalize and update
Marx's criticisms of societies that force men to act contrary
to their better natures. Labour is not simply a component of
production, but how men are forced to live. Class ideologies
that reduce liberties are perversions of language which we need
to exhume and examine.
Habermas
has profited from his reading of C.S. Pierce and Dilthey. But
for all their stress on the communicative function of language,
Pierce adopted semiotics and Dilthey a scientific rationalism.
Habermas initially grounded language in psychoanalysis, {15}
as this was the most primitive and least mechanistic of possibilities.
Subsequently (and Habermas has always shown an admirable courage
in changing his mind) he adopted a linguistic model similar
to, but more fundamental than, Chomskian language competence.
{16} What the model attempts is to show that
truth, justice and freedom are interwoven at a fundamental level
in language.
Or can
be. There are many prejudices (e.g. anti-semitism) which issue
in obvious absurdities that experience corrects. But there are
also distortions of language that are not falsifiable by demonstration,
woven so deep that experience is imperceptibly coloured by them.
How can language so tainted cleanse itself? Habermas has developed
psychological suggestions of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg
that man has levels of cognitive and moral development latent
within him, which wait for the right environment for their activation.
{17}
Ultimately,
truth cannot be grounded in evidence, but in consensus, though
the two draw together in Habermas's "ideal speech situation".
Here the participants are won over by force of argument, not
by internal distortions of language or external pressures. Contrary
to the Poststructuralists, Habermas believes that its very claim
to universality allows "truth" to escape charges of
repression and paranoia. We cannot entirely eliminate distortions
of language, but we can be aware of them, which is sufficient.
Hermeneutics
and Literary Interpretation
Not so,
argues Albrecht Wellmer. Habermas's "future logos of final
and absolute truth" is unattainable, clearly in practice,
but also in theory if (as it must be) communication is between
people with slightly different viewpoints. {18}
Though cultural objects are shared ways in which a community
understands itself, communities change. How do we arrive at
a proper interpretation of objects from past civilizations.
Gadamer, according to the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, does
not explain. All things are relative: no one interpretation
is to be preferred over another. {19} Habermas
is more concerned with method, but doesn't bring praxis and
theory together, and is therefore far from achieving Husserl's
hope for a rigorous science. Ricoeur's suggestion would be to
search the text itself for the complex relationship between
explaining and understanding.
Intention
is central to Roman Ingarden's concept of the literary work
{20}, because texts preserve the acts of consciousness
on the part of their writer, which are then reanimated in various
ways by the reader. One can distinguish four levels in a text
{21} word sounds, meaning units, perspectives
controlling states of affair, and represented objectivities.
Particularly prevalent in the last two levels are gaps or indeterminacies,
which the reader fills with his own creations. But such gaps
are not filled in an uncontrolled fashion, argues Wolgang Iser
{22}, but through a process of retrospection
and anticipation that can overturn the text's "prestructure",
the coding of the reader's usual habits and expectations. Reading
indeed is a variable, complex business, which accepts the disruptions
and dissonances to be expected in a modernist work. Hans Robert
Jauss {23} stresses change. Since we absorb a
work only when we enlarge the horizon of our understanding,
the accepted canons of literature that no longer shock and challenge
may not be relevant. Meaning emerges in interaction between
text and readers, often in societies very different from the
writer's expectations, and so largely out of his control.
© Litlangs
2002 2003 2004
Consider
the e-book if you wish to consult
the 23 references and 40 Internet resources for this page.
See
Poetry-Portal for a
good overview of the Internet poetry world.
|