In "Hermeneutics," Friedrich Schleiermacher lays down the foundation for the Penrose Steps of the literary world. He states that the "complete knowledge [of a text] is contained within an apparent circle, so that every extraordinary thing can only be understood in the context of the general of which it is a part, and vice versa" (532).
In other words, you can’t fully understand the meaning of whole text without understanding the parts of that text, but you can’t fully understand the parts of that text without understanding the entire text.
...Right.
Really, though, this paradox makes sense. Think about various interpretations of the Bible over the years. In essence, the main ideas of the text hasn’t changed over the centuries since the biblical canon was established. Yes, translations have altered the text some, but the core narrative arc of the Bible--the story of creation, fall, and redemption--hasn’t changed. Yet there are dozens and dozens of different denominations, each created because people can’t agree on the meaning of the (virtually unchanging) text.
Interpretation is a finicky thing. You can study cultural context for years, read dictionary definitions for every word in a passage, and research as much as you can about an author’s biography and his/her circumstances at the time of the text’s composition, but one errant comment or a new fact can revolutionize the meaning of a text.
Schleiermacher acknowledges the difficulty of trying to interpret text. Yes, he does say we need to “understand the discourse just as well and even better than its creator (531),” but he also acknowledges that “even the best [interpretation] is only an approximation of the meaning. Because interpretation so seldom succeeds... we can see that we are still far from the goal of making hermeneutics a perfect art” (535). He recognizes that we’re never going to be able to get to the bottom of a great piece of literature.
Personally, I think this is what makes literature great--and what makes hermeneutics enjoyable. Yes, there will be overarching themes that can be agreed on, but when it comes to close analysis of the text, there’s going to be disagreement over meaning of specific words. This is especially true when the text is discussed in different time periods, as the cultural context of the time of interpretation will often have just as large of an impact on the reading of a text as the cultural context when the piece was written.
Still, it can be frustrating to spend so much time walking up the stairs, as it were, only to realize you’re stuck in a rut and are back where you were.
...Right.
Really, though, this paradox makes sense. Think about various interpretations of the Bible over the years. In essence, the main ideas of the text hasn’t changed over the centuries since the biblical canon was established. Yes, translations have altered the text some, but the core narrative arc of the Bible--the story of creation, fall, and redemption--hasn’t changed. Yet there are dozens and dozens of different denominations, each created because people can’t agree on the meaning of the (virtually unchanging) text.
Interpretation is a finicky thing. You can study cultural context for years, read dictionary definitions for every word in a passage, and research as much as you can about an author’s biography and his/her circumstances at the time of the text’s composition, but one errant comment or a new fact can revolutionize the meaning of a text.
Schleiermacher acknowledges the difficulty of trying to interpret text. Yes, he does say we need to “understand the discourse just as well and even better than its creator (531),” but he also acknowledges that “even the best [interpretation] is only an approximation of the meaning. Because interpretation so seldom succeeds... we can see that we are still far from the goal of making hermeneutics a perfect art” (535). He recognizes that we’re never going to be able to get to the bottom of a great piece of literature.
Personally, I think this is what makes literature great--and what makes hermeneutics enjoyable. Yes, there will be overarching themes that can be agreed on, but when it comes to close analysis of the text, there’s going to be disagreement over meaning of specific words. This is especially true when the text is discussed in different time periods, as the cultural context of the time of interpretation will often have just as large of an impact on the reading of a text as the cultural context when the piece was written.
Still, it can be frustrating to spend so much time walking up the stairs, as it were, only to realize you’re stuck in a rut and are back where you were.
*Because every blog needs at least one Journey reference. It's like an unwritten rule.
Morgan,
ReplyDeleteI love this, especially in light of how most lit classes go...debating around and around a certain interpretation. You're thoughts around the influence of cultural context brings to mind some of the things I learned from Postmodern Lit and Culture (I know it's early to bring this in...but I can't help it :). This idea of interpretation, and contextualization, and understanding something within a specific context, but not necessarily agreeing on something, because we're all from a different place, is fascinating to me. I would get so bored sitting in a class where everything was laid out for me...this way, we get to keep going "on and on and on..." :)
I agree entirely. Half the fun of analysis is finding all the nuances, however fluid they may be. Those little discoveries, whether it was in a class discussion/lecture or in an article you're reading, that change one's entire view of a certain piece make me love literature. The flashes of lightning, if you don't mind the Maimonides reference, are what make studying these works so very enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteI like the image you used. So why do we do this Hermeneutic stuff anyway? It's infused with so much mystery! This is why I really like Augustine's idea that an interpretation can only be right so long as it leads to more love for God and one's neighbor. While an interpretation of a text can never be perfect, we must find a working interpretation from which to glean the most important means for cultivating an increasing love for God and neighbors. In this light, each person has got to start with some sense of the truth about scripture and test it with practice. A correct interpretation of a divinely authored text should lead us to a more and more perfectly refined interpretation as the holy spirit teases out the meanings in the mind of the Bible interpreter. This is what is great about the reformation and increased access to the Bible. Despite the dangers of letting people interpret for themselves, there is a way in which the meaning will tease itself out inside a person's mind. When it comes to teaching it is important not to be so pragmatic. There is a sense that on a personal level we have growth in understanding, but on a universal level, we're all stuck in the same place.
ReplyDeleteI feel a lot less pressure to understand what the author meant in a work that isn't intended to be prescriptive for living (at least in part). In the realm of normal literary works, I love just seeing where the evidence presented in the text takes me toward understanding something about the world. I don't tend to care what the author meant, but just what they said. Perhaps this makes me more like the Formalists in that sense. I am however concerned with context and audience.
Schliermacher was a pretty smart guy. I think his attempt at making interpretation more "objective" was to try to stop the endless cycle of reading/interpretation. He didn't succeed entirely.
ReplyDeleteMorgan: I like your explanation of the cyclical nature of understanding a text. Although it has caused many rifts in the church, I think this is one of the most important principles to keep in mind when interpreting the Bible. The little details can be easily misinterpreted without understanding the full message of the Bible (Jewish laws are totally different in light of the New Testament) but the full Bible, obviously, cannot be interpreted without having read it's singular parts. I think this is what makes a good work and also what makes reading so interesting. There should always be a deeper level to get to because the interpreting should always circle back on itself.
ReplyDelete