0% found this document useful (0 votes)
24 views3 pages

Key Theories of Gadamer

Uploaded by

Makmur Aji
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
24 views3 pages

Key Theories of Gadamer

Uploaded by

Makmur Aji
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Key Theories of Hans-Georg Gadamer

The dream of recovering the complete or total meaning of a literary text, by re-
imagining the author’s intentions, comes to an end with the work of Hans Georg
Gadamer (1900–2002; instead of this hermeneutic or interpretive circle (circling back
from the text to the author, and back again, closing off, or finishing the job of
interpretation), Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach involves understanding the
historical situations of text and reader, and the ways in which these interact to create
a temporarily shared meaning. The mystical divination of a text is thus replaced by
Heidegger’s notion that the hermeneutical circle is actually ‘part of the structure of
understanding itself ’. Gadamer’s insights into a hermeneutics for the twentieth
century thus draw not only from some of the great phenomenological thinkers such
as Husserl and Heidegger, but also partake of the paradigm shift of the observer being
part of the equation when it comes to measuring or assessing the observed, a shift
that many thinkers argue paved the way for postmodernism. Gadamer was born in
Marburg, Germany and was educated at Breslau University where he studied art and
music history, German literature and neo-Kantian philosophy, receiving his doctorate
for a thesis on Plato in 1922. An early publication called ‘On the Idea of System in
Philosophy’ (1924) reveals the influence of Martin Heidegger, with whom Gadamer
had studied the previous year; Gadamer described the experience of first reading
Heidegger as affecting him ‘like an electric shock’ and his lectures as revealing ‘the
energy of a revolutionary thinker’. Heidegger continued to impact upon Gadamer
throughout his early years as an academic, and this can be seen in his first book, a
phenomenological reading of Plato published in 1931. By that time Gadamer had
passed his higher doctorate, called a habilitation (1928) and was lecturing at Marburg.
During the early Nazi period, through which he lived, Gadamer turned his attentions
to the study of mathematics, and published a book on Johann Gottfried Herder (1942).
In 1937 Gadamer was promoted to the position of professor, followed by a
professorship in classical philology at Halle, and then a professorship at Leipzig
(1938–1947), where he became the rector. Gadamer returned to scholarship with a
move to Frankfurt (1947–1949), being awarded in 1949 Karl Jaspers’ Chair at
Heidelberg (1949–1968). It was during this period that Gadamer produced his major
work Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (1960)
translated in 1975 (without the important subtitle) as Truth and Method.

How is the reader new to Gadamer going to approach the more than five hundred
pages of critical and philosophical analysis of his Truth and Method? One of the
leading commentators on Gadamer (and hermeneutics), Richard E. Palmer, suggests
that a list of twenty key terms from Truth and Method are essential for understanding
the relevance of Gadamer’s approach. Taking just five of these terms – understanding,
play, event, experience and conversation – one can at least get a sense of the dynamic
process that Gadamer advocates in releasing the reader from the traditional closed
hermeneutic circle where a total or complete truth is to be recreated and recovered.
For Gadamer, interpretation is fundamentally dialogic: the metaphor of an ongoing
conversation is therefore extremely important. This dialogue or conversation also
implies an openness to the text’s ‘alterity’ or otherness. How does the interpreter
achieve this? Not through neutrality or effacing one’s own identity, but through
foregrounding what one brings to the text, those attitudes that Heidegger, in section
forty five of Being and Time calls the ‘fore-having’, ‘fore-sight’ and ‘foreconception
of interpretation’. In other words, the recognition of the ‘prejudice’ that readers bring
to the text, is also a way of clearing a space to recognize the otherness of the text, or,
as Gadamer puts it, allowing the text to ‘assert its own truth’. The reader, however, is
not an entirely autonomous agent: she is situated historically, which means that her
identity has been formed in part by the tradition, and she carries on, in participation
and understanding, to contribute to the production of the tradition. Gadamer thus
argues that understanding is not something miraculous, but a ‘sharing in a common
meaning’ between text and reader, tradition and interpreter. Where traditional
hermeneutics regarded the interpretive act as a recovery of a text’s full meaning (an
act of closure), Gadamer argues that the correct stance is one of a disrupted ‘fore-
conception of completeness’ where we assume that a text is ‘full’ or complete in its
meaning, but reality (the encounter with the object) reveals that this assumption is
incorrect and the text is unintelligible. Gadamer distinguishes here between the
attempt to understand the content of a text versus the attempt to recover another’s
meaning embodied via the writing of a text. While there is a bond between the
interpreter and the text as transmitted by tradition, it is not necessarily a mystical
union between the two; rather, Gadamer suggests that hermeneutics is affected by
the polarity of ‘familiarity and strangeness’. It is the play between the two, the
crossing ‘between’ belonging and alienation, that is the space of hermeneutics.
Temporal distance here is not a problem to be overcome, but a constitutive factor. In
other words, the traditional hermeneutic approach whereby the past authorial
position needed to be reproduced, crossing the vast gulf of time (transposing
‘ourselves into the spirit of the age’), is replaced by a notion of interpretive
production, achieved through temporal distance, and the falling away of the cares and
concerns of ‘the present’ in relation to the object in question. Poststructuralist
theorists are deeply suspicious of this move, because it suggests that there is an
underlying authenticity or universality that such hermeneutic inquiry uncovers, for
example, that Shakespeare’s plays are expressive of aesthetic genius regardless of the
age in which they are read or performed. In fact, the hermeneutics being described
here would have to argue that it is only across time that such a recognition could
occur, not in the sense of ‘historicism’ (the object is now isolated and stable because
of the passing of time) but in the sense of ‘historicity’ (the foregrounding of the
reader’s situated prejudices). The reader thus has an awareness of her hermeneutical
situation, a limited standpoint which has a finite horizon, yet, and this is essential,
Gadamer argues that human beings are never limited by a single horizon: horizons
shift and change as life itself moves on. Further, understanding is the fusion of
historical and present horizons, with the understanding that this is not a permanent
arrival at truth. Again, we can see how this notion of understanding prefigures
postmodernism, because here ‘the knower’s present situation loses its status as a
privileged position and becomes instead a fluid and relative moment’.

As Palmer notes, since the publication of Truth and Method, everything in Gadamer’s
life ‘has been a series of articulations, explanations, further developments, even
changes, in this masterwork’. Published in 1960 at the age of sixty, Gadamer spent
the next four decades exploring the implications of his work to an international
audience. Why was there such an audience for Gadamer when high theory was taking
over the academy, even given his importance for followers of a more specialist
phenomenological hermeneutics? The clue lies in
the third section of Truth and Method, titled ‘The ontological shift of hermeneutics
guided by language’. As the academy went through the linguistic turn, there was
Gadamer’s outstanding critique of philosophy and interpretation making an
analogous move:

only in the third part of Gadamer’s major work does it become clear that the
deconstruction of all privileged positions is a bold and unconditioned move to
language. Language is not a ‘tool’ that the privileged consciousness may use to
‘express’ its positions. It is rather a phenomenon that speaks us before we speak it,
and this means that we can never step outside of it and stand
over against it.

https://literariness.org/2017/03/29/key-theories-of-hans-georg-gadamer/#google_vignette

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy