Hermeneutics
When I went to Seattle University for my degree in psychology, I was introduced to Continental philosophy. I was most impressed by a field I had never heard of: hermeneutics. I had seen the 13 midot of biblical legal exegesis translated as hermeneutics, and just thought it was a funny sounding word. It turns out that in 19th century Germany theologians’ original interest in the principles of biblical interpretation broadened to an interest in the principles of interpretation in general–they called this field of study hermeneutics.
After graduating I wanted to take a deeper dive into the world of hermeneutics and found a wealth of resources. My favorite was Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer, written by Richard E. Palmer in 1969 (My copy was the 8th printing, from 1988, so that gives you an idea how popular it was. According to Google Scholar it's been cited 4,348 times).
I think it’s been about 10 years since I first read the book and now I’ve decided to read it again. During my first read I kept thinking about all the meaningful connections that could be made to my learning of Torah and, for sure, my study of hermeneutics has impacted how I study and how I reflect on my studies. Now that I’m re-reading it I decided I would try to make some of those connections more explicit with brief summaries and personal reflections on major points in the book.
Here’s my first reflection. I’ll start with the summary and next time I’ll give the reflection.
“Object” vs “Work”
At the time Palmer wrote the book the prevailing method of interpretation in England and America fit into the framework of realism. In this framework the work is held as having a being in and of itself. The author’s intentions are beside the point. Subject and object are held strictly apart–the literary work must be held aloft and analyzed. Analysis is identical with interpretation.
Palmer bemoans this approach:
We have forgotten that the literary work is not a manipulatable object completely at our disposal; it is a human voice out of the past, a voice which must somehow be brought to life. Dialogue, not dissection, opens up the world of a literary work. Disinterested objectivity is not appropriate to the understanding of a literary work. (p. 7)
Palmer goes on to give a helpful way of conceptualizing the two ways of approaching the written word: “object” vs “work.”
“Object” implies objectivity. “Object” comes from two Latin roots. “Ob” meaning "in front of, towards, against" and “iacere” meaning "to throw.” This can be opposed to “subject” which replaces “ob” with “sub” meaning under. (hat-tip to www.etymonline.com) (We’ll talk about the etymology of project and what the hermeneuticists (I think I made that word up) another time.) So a subject is that which is thrown under–or, that which is under the control of another.
The view of literature as “object” necessitates an obliteration of the subject. This obliteration is twofold–the author and the reader must be removed from the analysis to attain a true, or objective understanding of the text.
“Work” returns the human subject to the text. A “work” is a human product and must be judged in that light. A “work” does not stand separate from its maker, nor from its receiver. Hermeneutics seeks to understand literature as a “work.”
Palmer sums it up as follows:
Literary criticism needs to seek a “method” or “theory” specifically appropriate to deciphering the human imprint on a work, its “meaning.” This “deciphering” process, this “understanding” the meaning of a work, is the focus of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the study of understanding, especially the task of understanding texts. Natural science has methods of understanding natural objects; “works” require a hermeneutic, a “science” of understanding appropriate to works as works. (p. 8)
Comments