Contemporary Philosophical Hermeneutics

Westphal intends to show us how contemporary philosophical hermeneutics can help us think theologically about biblical interpretation both theoretically and practically.[1] Westphal primarily draws upon the hermeneutical theory of Hans – Georg Gadamer, but he also appeals to the philosophical work of individuals such as, Martin Heideggar, Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Kant.[2] His main thesis is that modern hermeneutic theory reveals to us that interpretation is inevitable. He argues that, Gadamer believes that interpretation cannot occur void of prejudgments or prejudices. This is the reason why there will always be a diversity of interpretations. We are all shaped by diverse cultural and sociopolitical contexts that consequently shape our worldview. Our worldview then becomes the lens through which we interpret Scripture. This plurality of worldviews has great implications for the global church because no one tradition can claim the right interpretation of Scripture. This kind of thinking allows for pluralism, diversity and dialogue.

According to Westphal, Gadamer insists that interpretation is never free from preconceptions, presumptions and presuppositions. In order for interpretation to occur the brain needs to reach in for pre-stored data or information to make a judgment. We therefore all come with biases (prejudices) that influence our interpretations.[3] According to Gadamer these preconceptions are not static but dynamic in the sense that we constantly revise them or even change them over time. This idea of a back and forth relationship between presumptions and interpretations is called the hermeneutical circle. [4] Each and everyone’s interpretation is therefore influenced by a multiplicity of traditions we pick up through life. Westphal asserts that Gadamer believes that understanding is always contextual.[5] Westphal argues that interpretation therefore has a double relativity, first is the relativity due to divers traditions and the second relativity due to the idiosyncrasies of each individual human even in a similar tradition.[6] Gadamer’s relativity is not a post modernism kind of relativity that insists that everything goes. Westphal states that Gadamer  still believes that there is a right and wrong interpretation.[7] He however draws upon Art with an example of a Hammerklavier Sonata he asserts that there are three classes of interpretation, first those that get wrong or unskilled players, those that get it right but regrettable players and then finally those that get it right or world class skillful players.[8] I do agree with Westphal and Gadamer that we all come to interpretation with biases, and it is true that our culture and socio-political background greatly impacts our worldviews. I believe that we are living in age of plurality and diversity. I however think that Gadamer in as much as he is denying a reckless pluralism that is steeped in postmodernism he still is advocating for a limited form pluralism that is still highly subjective. I realize that it takes a community to judge what can be said to be a right or wrong interpretation. I do not see much of a difference between his controlled pluralism and the post modernism kind of plurality because art is highly subjective. Each culture defines beauty differently. This is where I find Hirsch’s fears coming into play. I agree with Gadamer but I am still yet to be convinced that his interpretation is better that the post modernism approach. I however do agree with him for most of the part.

In Chapter two, Westphal takes a closer look at two of the most profound hermeneutic philosophers of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhem Dilthey. Obviously Westphal is primarily focused on the work of modern philosophers such as Hans –Goerg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur but he draws some concepts from the rich tradition pre-modern (pre-Enlightenment) hermeneutical philosophers. Schleiermacher wanted to de-regionalize hermeneutics. Westphal asserts that, “ In what Ricoeur has called the deregionalization of hermeneutics, Schleiermacher set out to develop a general hermeneutics that would apply culturally significant texts regardless of their subject matter.”[9] Schleiermacher’s intention was to develop a theory of interpretation that was universally applicable regardless of the subject matter.[10] He wanted to identify the common features rather than the obvious discrepancies or differences in each discipline. Westphal speaks about the notion of the hermeneutic circle, the idea that interpretation has a pendulum kind of motion between prejudice and revision or replacement of meaning. Gadamer concurs with Schleiermacher on the notions of the deregionalization of hermeneutics and the hermeneutical circle. I do agree with both Schleiermacher and Gadamer that as humans we are fallible and we can only know in part.1 Corinthians 13:9-10 states that, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” Interpretation is a dynamic process not static; it is more like a hermeneutic spiral. I believe that interpretation is authentically made in community. Even when a community interprets a scared text or life, the door must remain open to learn from other communities and cultures. This process allows learning and growth to occur and this is the purpose for hermeneutics. The ministry of the Holy Spirit within the community called the church is also necessary for interpretation. I also think that the deregionalization of hermeneutics is only possible if we are aware of our own cultural biases first. The first step is to recognize that each culture interprets life idiosyncratically and from that vantage point can we correctly de-culture and de-regionalize hermeneutics.

Westphal also asserts that Schleiermacher espouses romantic hermeneutics which is steeped is psychologism and objectivism. Gadamer disagrees with Schleiermacher and rejects both psychologism and objectivism. Westphal says this when referring to psychologism, “It begins with the assumption that language is primarily to be understood as the outer expression of the inner psychic life.”[11] Schleiermacher believed that the goal of interpretation is to understand the mind of the author. Westphal states that Schleiermacher believed that, “ Before the art of hermeneutics can be practiced, the interpreter must put himself both objectively and subjectively in the position of the author.”[12] Dilthey also embraces this notion of psychologism and believes that we can recreate, reconstruct history and be able experience the mind of the author. Ricoeur is in the same camp with Schleiermacher’s divinatory method. Gadamer according to Westphal opposes Schleiermacher’s objectivism and empiricism of hermeneutics. Gadamer asserts that we are supposed to read the text under its own merit and not to read history or the author. Gadamer is not against method or empiricism but he is beyond method.[13] He opposes objectivity because he believes that the moment subjectivity ceases to exist is the same moment creativity ceases to exist. Objectivity kills creativity and interpretation. Gadamer however loves Schleiermacher’s conceptualization of interpretation as an art than as a science.[14] For Gadamer how you interpret art is fundamental for how you interpret everything. Gadamer wants the text to speak for itself as a work of art, free from objectivism and psychologism. I agree with Gadamer that there is no way to recreate a scenario in history where we can objectively experience the mind of the author. This is empirically impossible and only similar to ideas you find in a science fiction movie. I however think that authorial meaning is still valid and necessary for interpretation. I believe that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the community called the church can help us in identifying authorial meaning. I think that we need to let the scripture speak for itself. The scripture does not need historical criticism to speak to us. The issue is that the scripture is a living text that is still speaking to us today in as much as it spoke to people in antiquity. The scriptures are not only relevant in the past but they are relevant to our context and circumstances. What the author thought is not as relevant as what the scriptures are saying to us today. I oppose objectivism because I believe in the multiplicity of interpretation hence meaning cannot be held hostage by fundamentalism. I agree with Gadamer that viewing art as interpretation allows for pluralism and diversity of interpretations.

Westphal asserts that Hirsch appeals to the exclusive rights of the author to provide textual meaning. Westphal argues that, “Like Wolterstorff, Hirsch appeals to the prerogative of the author to provide such meaning. The text means what the author meant. The author is the determiner of textual meaning. The task of interpretation is to reproduce what the author meant.”[15] Hirsch however does not speak of authorial intention as romantic psychologism but as the public and shareable meaning the author offer us. Hirsch therefore believes that the meaning of the text is immutable and constant. Hirsch is worried about authorial irrelevance, textual autonomy, the anarchy of opinion and multiplicity of meanings.[16] Hirsch is mainly concerned with the empirical author. Hirsch disagrees with Gadamer, he unlike Gadamer ties meaning to the author rather than to the reader or hearer.[17] The author is the only one who has the privilege of determining the meaning of the text according to Hirsch. Dilthey says that Hirsch has been smitten with the vertigo of relativity. Gadamer is contradistinctive and antithetical to Hirsch, he believes that meaning only exists in the act of interpretation and since each act is unique there will always be multiple interpretations. I agree with Gadamer that authorial meaning is still relevant. It is impossible to know exclusively what the author meant but if we declare death to authorial privilege we must not totally obliterate the meaning the author intended to bring to the text. Whilst it is true that meaning is must not be reserved exclusively for the author because the text was also written for readers to interpret. I believe that whenever an author writes a text it is never void of meaning. The author writes with intention to convey a message. When Jesus was speaking to the church, he was speaking to an eschatological body of believers. Scriptures therefore speak to the church whether during the days of Jesus or during our time. Jesus was addressing the timeless church, which means that whatever age the church finds itself in, it must be able to understand the words of Jesus.

Westphal lifts up three French postmodernist authors who sought to revoke Hirsch’s thesis of authorial privilege. He argues that Roland Barthes, Micheal Foucalt, James Derrida and Ricouer were all protagonists for revoking authorial privilege. Gadamer does not advocate the absolute death of the author but he espouses the death of the absolute author whilst at the same time preserving authorial meaning. On this aspect of preserving authorial meaning Gadamer agrees with Derrida.[18] Gadamer believes that meaning is not limited to the author, it goes beyond its author, Hirsch disagree with him on this. I however agree with Gadamer in the sense that authorial meaning still needs to be preserved. I however disagree with the evangelical conceptualization of meaning which breeds a dangerous fundamentalism ideology. The idea that meaning is stuck with the author and that it is rigid and immutable is absurd. Scriptures requires interpretation and no one interpretation must bully others. This allows for plurality of interpretation and diversity of meanings. I think that we can never fully comprehend the meaning of the author because of the limitation of time and space. We can decipher authorial meaning by looking at the overall narrative of the text and also by going back into scripture to figure out the context. Scripture must always be read in context. We can never obtain authorial meaning if we read the pretext or post-text only. We need to have a good overview of the text in question.

According to Westphal, Gadamer speaks of interpretation as conversation whereby the reader is entering into an active dialogue with a text rather than as a passive observer of the text.[19] The latter attitude is synonymous with fundamentalists or dogmatists who believe that they already have all the answers.[20] Gadamer conceptualization of dialogue is capture in his idea of “fusion of horizons”: which means the ability to embrace a higher worldview that overcomes our own particularity with the ability to embrace difference.[21] Westphal  goes on to develop Gadamer’s concept of the relationship between interpretation and  dialogue into proposals for the church and biblical interpretation. Westphal proposes the fusion of Gadamer ideas with the liberal communitarian traditions of John Rawls and Alasdair MacItyre.[22] I agree with Westphal that ideas are best developed in dialogue with the text in a community.I also agree with his liberal-communitarian ideology but I think it does have its own challenges. I think his proposal of a particular method of interpretation, which the assertion that everyone does it makes him come out like a realist. I know that he is a critical realist but I think that there can never be a correct formula for interpretation. I think what Gadamer, Westphal, MacIntyre and Rawls bring are just different horizons that we can learn from but can never be the ideal way of interpretation.

In conclusion I can say that Westphal helped to unpack Gadamers concepts of interpretation in a way that made it easier for me to understand hermeneutics. It is true that interpretation is what all humans do as long as they are alive and that there will always have multiple interpretations. We all bring our prejudices, preconceptions, and prejudgments to the text. No one comes to the task of interpretation empty. Our prejudgments are picked throughout our lifetime from our social, political and cultural contexts. The moment we realize this is the moment we begin to interpret texts responsibly.

---

[1] Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church, The Church and Postmodern Culture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 13.

[2] Ibid, 14.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 15.

[6] Ibid, 14.

[7] Ibid, 104.

[8] Ibid, 104-105.

[9] Ibid, 28.

[10] Ibid, 28.

[11] Ibid, 29.

[12] Ibid, 30.

[13] Ibid, 31.

[14] Ibid, 32.

[15] Ibid, 47-48.

[16] Ibid, 49.

[17] Ibid, 48.

[18] Ibid, 62.

[19] Ibid, 117.

[20] Ibid, 116.

[21] Ibid, 107.

[22] Ibid, 130.