Interpretation
A Critical Primer
Nathan Eric Dickman [+–]
University of the Ozarks
Nathan Eric Dickman (PhD, The University of Iowa) is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of the Ozarks. He researches in hermeneutic phenomenology, philosophy of language, and comparative questions in philosophies of religions, with particular concerns about global social justice issues in ethics and religions. He has taught a breadth of courses, from Critical Thinking to Zen, and Existentialism to Greek & Arabic philosophy. His book titled “Using Questions to Think” (Bloomsbury, 2021) examines the roles questions play in critical thinking and reasoning, his book titled “Philosophical Hermeneutics and the Priority of Questions in Religions” (Bloomsbury, 2022) examines the roles questions play in religious discourse, and his book titled “Interpretation: A Critical Primer” (Equinox, 2023) examines the role of questions in the interpretation of texts.
While many people engage in interpretation, it is not clear what interpretation is. This critical primer examines the nature of interpretation, strategies within interpretation, and negotiations about the adequacy of an interpretation, with special attention paid to possible roles hermeneutics (the theory of interpretation) plays in the academic study of religions.
This book addresses a number of fundamental questions posed throughout the history of hermeneutics:
• What is an “interpretation”?
• What or who determines the meaning of a text?
• What helps in navigating competitions or conflicts of interpretation?
• What is the place of interpretation in the academy, relative to explanatory sciences and productive arts?
Many books have focused on historical developments of hermeneutics, on key modern hermeneutic philosophers, or on specific sacred texts such as in biblical or Quranic hermeneutics. The unique approach taken to interpretation here is based on the fundamental axiom of philosophical hermeneutics—the hermeneutic priority of questioning. Through this, the author makes a case for the critical value of interpretation.
Each chapter of this book refines a conceptual element that combines with others into a theory of interpretation useful for the classroom and in scholarship on hermeneutics.
Table of Contents
Introduction
What is the Meaning of a Text? [+–] 1-18
Interpretation appears to be ubiquitous. Are we ever not interpreting? From disagreements over the US constitution to divergent perspectives about our favorite songs and movies to opposing views about sacred texts. At the same time, people use “interpretation” pejoratively, to claim that someone else’s perspective is merely an interpretation whereas their own perspective is an accurate picture of reality. This introduction forges parameters for a useful notion of interpretation focused on written texts but can be a skill transferable by analogy to other things besides texts.
Chapter 1
The Predicaments of Interpretation [+–] 19-41
Chapter One, The Predicaments of Interpretation, will examine the situation or predicament of interpretation. Why do we interpret at all? How do we know when we have interpreted rather than, say, explained something? What determines the “correct” interpretation, if there is such a thing as correct or incorrect interpretations? This last question forms the core of this chapter. We will see that previous attempts to address the question have isolated three primary options: the writer’s intention, the reader’s response, or the text itself. I propose, alternatively, that questions take priority in interpretation, which will relate to semantics as we noted above. It takes a question to transform a sentence perceived into a complete thought or sense understood. This chapter also surveys a number of contestations in the hermeneutics of sacred texts, frameworks that go beyond the writer, reader, and text, such as broader historical context, the establishment of (in)complete canons, literary genres, and more. In this light, another topic that informs the situation or predicament of interpretation is the location of the humanities in differentiation from natural sciences and fine arts in academia.
Chapter 2
The Initiatives of Interpretation [+–] 42-64
Chapter Two, The Initiatives of Interpretation, will turn to an analysis of the mindset or consciousness of interpretation. This turn reframes interpretation, not in terms of its objects (namely, texts), but in terms of the subjectivity of interpreters themselves. The philosopher Edmund Husserl’s idealist phenomenology will help us unlock interpretation as a mode of consciousness structured by intentionality. Through this, we can achieve a level of self-consciousness or reflexivity about the predicament of all interpretive consciousness. Because consciousness is structured by history and culture, all interpretation is correspondingly structured. The structuring of interpretive consciousness is detectable in identification of prejudices and examination of the nature of prejudice. This will also require some examination of the subject position of colonialist Eurocentrism.
Chapter 3
The Mediums of Interpretation [+–] 65-90
Chapter Three, The Mediums of Interpretation, will examine the medium in which interpretation takes place: language. We will develop a philosophy of language informed by the art and practice of interpretation. This turns our attention away from language systems (such as Thai, Arabic, English, etc.) and toward living dialogues, conversations that we actually have with one another even if we speak different languages and have to muddle through to reach an understanding. We will look at ways language transforms experience, from sensation of material environments to conceptions of meaningful worlds. Language liberates us from the immediacy of environments. In this way, language is like an artwork. The transformative power of works of art provide a clue to grasping how language liberates us, despite common figures of speech that “language” is too limiting for grasping profound truths.
Chapter 4
The Objects of Interpretation [+–] 91-111
Chapter Four, The Objects of Interpretation, turns to a theory of written texts, expanding on our discussion above where we distinguished books and texts. This involves examining how writing transforms discourse in a way that spoken and signed languages do not. Through writing, we can communicate across space and time in ways speech does not allow, but we can also build worlds for imaginative exploration and transformation of our immediate experiences and perceptions. For example, are we facing forward, or North, or toward Mecca? Moreover, we will refine the priority of questioning in interpretation to specify the logic of question and answer in relation to specific sentences composing texts. Questions help us weave lines of the text into a broader fabric of meanings into an interpretation. One notion in particular shapes how we have received texts over time is the “classic,” texts that have the power to continue to speak to future generations of readers.
Chapter 5
The Practices of Interpretation [+–] 112-128
Chapter Five, The Practices of Interpretation, examines the social aspects and institutional elements of interpretation. How do communities of readers establish and change canons of acceptability for some interpretations and not others? How do different interpretive communities incorporate critical perspectives such as Critical Race Theory, Crip Theory, Feminist Criticism, and more? We will detail the three fundamental steps of the hermeneutic arc: from initial guess, to critical explanation, to a culminating comprehension. The process and dynamism of interpretation involves all of these but grasping this involves distinguishing interpretation from explanation and clarifying existential appropriation and application.
Conclusion
What Lies Beyond Interpretation? [+–] 129-135
In the Conclusion, What Lies beyond Interpretation?, I conclude this critical primer by investigating and proposing roles for interpretation in the academic study of religions. There have been numerous attempts in Religious Studies to negotiate the proper place of philosophy in the intrinsic interdisciplinarity of the field. Can philosophy contribute to the evaluation and assessment of first order religious discourse as well as second order Religious Studies criticism? I end by reiterating rigorous limits of understanding and interpretation, keeping clear that everything is not and cannot be treated as a text. Although we might desire to smear meaning and understanding across everything conceivable, the end goal here is to restrain our desire for absolute understanding.
