See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273447378

Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics: Concepts of reading,

understanding and interpretation

Article · December 2012

CITATIONS READS

79 36,093

1 author:

Paul Regan
University of Central Lancashire
27 PUBLICATIONS 175 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Regan on 12 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

META: RESEARCH IN HERMENEUTICS, PHENOMENOLOGY, AND PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY

VOL. IV, NO. 2 / DECEMBER 2012: 286-303, ISSN 2067-3655, www.metajournal.org

Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics:

Concepts of reading, understanding and
interpretation

Paul Regan
University of Central Lancashire

Abstract

Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics is a popular qualitative

research interpretive method aiming to explore the meaning of individual
experiences in relation to understanding human interpretation. Gadamer
identifies that authentic engagement with reading requires awareness of the
inter-subjective nature of understanding in order to promote a reflective
engagement with the text. The main concepts of Gadamer’s view of reading
and understanding are explored in this paper in relation to interpreting text.
Concepts such as; inter-subjectivity, Being, authenticity, fore-structure, pre-
suppositions, prejudice, temporality and history are all help to enhance
health and social science researchers’ understanding of his theory and its
application.

Keywords: Gadamer, Philosophical hermeneutics, Reading, Understanding,

Interpretation, Qualitative research

Introduction
Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) was an influential German
philosopher of the twentieth century, inspiring a variety of
scholastic disciplines from aesthetics to theology. In suggesting
understanding was interpretation and vice versa, Gadamer
identifies language acting as the medium for understanding
and a means of sharing the complexities of human experience
(Gadamer 2004a). From the ground breaking work of his
teacher and friend Martin Heidegger, Gadamer wrote about
human subjectivity and developing a critical and dialogical
286
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

approach to philosophical hermeneutics in his magnus opus

Truth and Method (2004a) first published in 1960.

The purpose of this paper

This paper aims to articulate Gadamer’s work in relation to
reading, understanding and interpretation for health and social
science researchers’. Gadamer’s key concepts are of particular
concern for qualitative researchers’ intending to use
philosophical hermeneutics for interpreting research
participants’ narrative and findings. The researchers’ own
experience of reading and understanding are important when
relating concepts of pre-supposition (bias, fore-structure), inter-
subjectivity, authenticity (being reflective), temporality (time
affecting understanding/ emotion), tradition and history
(culture) to interpreting the written word. These concepts are
significant because of the central interpretive relationship of
the researcher within the qualitative research process. The
terms researcher and interpreter are used interchangeably due
to the cyclical nature of interpretation.

Hermeneutic phenomenology
Gadamer’s concepts will be defined to make explicit the
working terms in use. Phenomenology underpins the
philosophy of Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutics (2004a).
Firstly, the word phenomenology comes from the Kantian
phenomenon meaning ‘‘…that which shows itself in itself…”
when entities become manifest as the first signification of the
word shows itself (Heidegger 2003, 51). First, the semblance of
what phenomenology shows conceptualises the word and what
it signifies to the interpreter (Heidegger 2003, 51). Second,
logos means language (Gadamer 2004b, 59) and relates to
Heidegger’s discourse and letting ‘‘…something be seen through
speaking…” (Heidegger 2003, 56). The vocal signification of a
named object connects language as a shared medium of
expression (Gadamer 2004a, 408; Gadamer 2004b, 59).
Phenomenology focusses on explaining how the primordial
thing-in-itself is ‘rooted’ in the events of life and understanding
what is signified by logos through the ‘‘…name by which
287
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

something is called…” (Gadamer 2004a, 407). Heidegger and

Gadamer’s phenomenological inquiry into Being (human
existence in the world) therefore enabled a rigorous and critical
questioning of something that had been largely taken for
granted in philosophy, the primordial understanding of Being
(Gadamer 2004a).
Hermeneutics is a term derived from the Greek ‘hermeneutikos’
meaning to interpret (Palmer 1969). Hermeneutics promotes
human potential for understanding the meaning of language to
expand the infinite possibilities of human thought (Palmer
1969). Developed from theological interpretations and meaning
of the Christian Bible hermeneutics aimed to confirm God’s
authority over the thinking process (Palmer 1969). The early
hermeneutics exercised a discriminating power over texts
suitability to carry the message of a transcendental wonder
(Dilthey) demonstrating, rather than human empowerment,
that interpretation with an ideological bias has the capacity to
restrict human potential for understanding more fully
(Alexander and Numbers 2010). What is significant about
Gadamer’s hermeneutics is his ontological focus (Being) and
capacity to not only interpret human understanding but
misunderstanding as a mechanism for effective communication.

Understanding language
As previously mentioned, the key to investigating Gadamer’s
concept of understanding is through logos (Gadamer 2004b, 59).
Logos is the vehicle for communicating with others, and when
we think and speak we ‘‘…make what is not present manifest
through …speaking…communicat(ing) everything that he
means…” (Gadamer 2004a, 391; Gadamer 2004b, 60-61). This
means that the word triggers a denoted name given to an object
and a resulting mental image (Gadamer 2004b, 62). When
thinking of any object we unconsciously join up our internalised
thoughts within the shared, externalised medium of
communicating with other people (Gadamer 2004b). Therefore
the commonality of language ensures a shared acceptance of
meaning and ability to vocalise thoughts when alone or when
with other people. That relates to the problem of language; we
learn to think and use language from the first steps of
288
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

cognisance, a familiarising engagement experientially with the

world and it with us (Aristotle in Gadamer 2004b, 63). This
allows the interpreter to develop ways of knowing and
predicting the world through the use of their senses of
conformity, cohesion and survival within the world (Flinn
2006). Such predictive abilities mean we are always biased in
our understanding of the spoken and written language as we
become consciously aware of language only in unusual
circumstances (Gadamer 2004b).
Gadamer suggests three inter-relational points of relevance to
language and understanding: Firstly, the universality of
language; every dialogue has the potential for ‘inner infinity,’
an ability to reason, project understanding onto another and
read between the lines. This dialogue may be in the form of a
reflective journal entry, a research participants narrative or
everyday dialogue in the health and social sciences. A
questioning mind ensures that language fills in any gaps
towards a shared understanding (Gadamer 2004b, 68) opening
up human potential for infinite dialogue with others in a fusion
of horizons. Secondly, Gadamer refers to the essential
forgetfulness of language; when losing the meaning of what is
said there is potential for the ‘‘…real Being of language to
unfold…” to be reduced (Gadamer 2004b, 64). Gadamer
develops the ontological (life experiences of the world)
reflexivity of language as a means of communicating the
meaning of what others say and write. As will be shown, this
ontological freedom encompasses historicity, temporality and
authenticity through hermeneutic analysis. Lastly, what
Gadamer called I-lessness. When we speak we speak to someone
and to our inner selves. When naming the word (in text or
visually) we enable the unifying effect of language and
communicating with others (Gadamer 2004b, 65). Gadamer
suggests there is a presence of spirit evident when using
language, for example; projecting hesitancy, anxiety, intention
and attitude. Gadamer refers to this as play in the hermeneutic
game, a dynamic process of buoyancy, freedom potentiating
reality and fulfilment of each players understanding. The play
continues in the subjective inner world of thought and the
motivation of the interpreter to play the game, to make sense of
289
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

language as a key factor for understanding experience

(Gadamer 2004b, 66). I will now expand on these conditions.

Language and text

The role of the interpreter within Gadamerian hermeneutics
has a specific characteristic in understanding human potential,
through the ontic-ontology of Heidegger’s notion of Being
(Heidegger 2003; Gadamer 2004a). The word ontology comes
from the Greek language meaning the study of Being, reviewed
by Heidegger for contemporary philosophy by situating Being
into the average everydayness of life (Heidegger 2003). To
Heidegger and Gadamer, understanding the concept of Being
and ‘what it is to be’ human meant that by analysing this most
fundamental of concepts we can then and only then begin to
understand how we live and engage in the world through the
medium of language (Gadamer 2004a; Gadamer 2004b).
Language delivers pointers to the truth concealed within word
meaning and reveals that something exists in a (hermeneutic)
circle of ontological possibilities (Gadamer 2004a).
Fundamental to Heidegger’s hermeneutic is the notion of the
human as an existential (worldly) ‘Being,’ referred to as ‘Da-
sein,’ always spelt with a capital D, ‘da’ meaning ‘there’ and
‘sein’ meaning ‘to be,’ or ‘there-being’ (Heidegger 2003). The
concept of Dasein lies therefore in the face of something that is.
Something inevitably has to exist first before it can be
investigated and Heidegger’s analysis enabled the first step
towards human understanding of Dasein (Heidegger 2003, 27).
This complex but also intuitively familiar concept relates to
when a human being becomes aware of themselves as an
existent located temporally in time ‘‘...Dasein (therefore) always
understands….its existence in terms of the possibility of …
be(ing) itself or not itself...” (Heidegger 2003, 33). Hence, we are
aware and yet unaware of ourselves, ‘forgetting’ as we go about
our daily lives, a pre-ontological awareness of existing through
the experiences of everyday life (Heidegger 2003). Heidegger’s
question enabled a single minded attempt to analyse the
human life experience as ontologically explicit and objectifiable
as possible (Gadamer 2004b).

290
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

Back in those ‘‘heady days” of Heidegger’s radical 1920’s

lectures, Heidegger’s work was a ‘‘…summons of existence
itself...” towards authenticity (Karl Jaspers in Gadamer 2004b,
139). This new kind of philosophy aimed to remind humans of
the choice of authenticity as an antidote to ‘falling’ (and
‘throwness’) which relates to being superficial when with other
people. We risk becoming just one of many, a risk that reduces
human self-awareness and understanding of our potential. By
being reminded of the possibility of authentic choice we may
search to objectify the habits of everyday life by revealing what
may otherwise remain hidden consciously or unconsciously
within language and dialogue (Gadamer 2004b, 140).
Gadamer suggests hermeneutics is not a method but a fluid set
of guiding principles aiding the human search for truth in the
concealed forgetfulness of language. The analytic of Dasein
means that research participants’ narrative of their life
experience, of say cancer care is in a sense not only their
individual experience but also experience valued in relation to
the universality of the Dasein concept. Hence, the interpreting
researcher too is analysing the universality of experience
applied into Dasein’s analytic which they too share as a fellow
human beings (Creswell 2007). Asking obvious yet profound
questions of Dasein reinforces a reflective philosophy. However
a difficulty is that despite humans being the only entity able to
study and name itself ontically, our unique complexity means
we aren’t like other entities at all, because we have language
(Heidegger 2003).

Fusion of horizons – the hermeneutic circle

It is the naming phenomena within language that places
restrictions on language which Gadamer (2004a) endeavours to
illuminate, arguing interpretations derived from such
understandings always involve a fusion of horizons. From the
familiar to the foreign all interpretations are derived from a
basic level of understanding or pre-judgment. When accepting
the inner world of subjectivity and searching for the meaning of
interpretation Dasein inevitably conceals the truth of language
and about life (Gadamer 2004a; 2004b). Hence, the reader is
part of this fusion.
291
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

Gadamer’s dialogical approach to hermeneutic text is suggested

to go beyond the author’s (or research participants transcribed
narrative) meaning (2004a). Gadamer agrees with Chladenius
that the reader and author ‘‘…doesn’t have to know the real
meaning of what he has written…” because it is the process of
interpretation that counts in the search for meaning of the
written word (Gadamer 2004a, 296). The text is re-awakened by
the interpreter making sense of what has been written (2004a).
The interpreter, however, needs to be aware of the hermeneutic
circle, not merely to understand what the author (or research
participant) meant; life experience (history) and use of
language, but also asking how the words resonate with the
interpreter. The issue therefore is not about finding the truth
the author wrote about but realising the truth it has for the
reader, how it becomes alive for the interpreter (Gadamer
2004a).
The process starts when text changes the spoken language into
an ‘‘…enduring and fixed expression of life…” the experience of
making sense of text always includes application; listening,
observing, testing, judging, challenging, reflecting and looking
for any bias whilst being-with-others (Gadamer 2004a, 389).
When reading the interpreter is helped by humans shared
capacity to deal with more than one perception at a time,
experienced in parallel with each other before the most likely
idea is grasped and gains clarity (Gadamer 2004a, 293). It is
this constant cycle of new projections and movement which
enhances understanding and interpretation of the meaning of
language (Gadamer 2004a, 293). When reading, our eyes need
to be open to the newness of the text in order to search for
meaning (2004a). The hermeneutic circle runs along the text
like a rhythm, open to my anticipation, my pre-conceptions,
prejudices and judgements (2004a). The reader needs to be
aware what guides their understanding and anticipation of the
completed speech and text, challenging hasty conclusions in
order to be open to more possibilities. Therefore, the language
used within the narrative acts as a middle ground between a
search for understanding and agreement between the text and
the interpreter (2004a).

292
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

Gadamer suggests all interpretations are derived from a basic

level of understanding or pre-judgment and accepting the inner
world of subjectivity (Gadamer 2004a,b). People rarely know
about other people’s views unless asked and instead will guess
or make assumptions. Gadamer’s view of the shared human
experience as an ‘application in the moment’ of the hermeneutic
circle was preceded forty years earlier by Walter Pater’s
observation ‘‘…for the grave reader…the word…reference is
rarely content to die to thought precisely at the right
moment…linger(s) awhile, stirring a long brainwave behind it
of perhaps quite alien associations…” (Iser 1972, 212).
Wolfgang Iser’s reception theory relates to Gadamer’s
philosophical hermeneutics; the act of reading enables an
inevitable consciousness raising activity. The interpreter’s
expectation of the text gives them the chance to ‘formulate the
unformulated’ and by being motivated to read they remain open
to reveal the unexpected even if alien to the interpreter because
the surprise of the text challenges the illusion of pre-supposed
expectations (Iser 1972, 212).

The alien and familiar information

In parallel with the early examples of hermeneutic application,
what is crucial is the process of identifying and linking the
alien with the familiar information, selectively focussing the
interpreters search for new perspectives (2004b, 4). This
depends on his enthusiasm to be open to new possibilities
(Gadamer 2004b, 4). The alien aspects of text are what is the
unknown, challenging the interpreter’s familiar worldly
horizons that assimilates old knowledge into new
understanding, even if difficult to understand, especially
relevant when reading the technical language of philosophy.
There is a process of suspension as the ‘alien’ and ‘unfamiliar’
text run side by side until new understanding emerges
(Gadamer 2004a, 269). Gadamer (2004b, 4) refers to two modes
of experiencing alienation in our concrete experiences; the
aesthetic and historical consciousness. In both cases
judgements are based on the validity of judgement,
characterising our sense of art in general being dependant on
time, cultural significance, resonance and authority. The
293
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

alienation of historical consciousness is the art of maintaining

an objective and critical distance from events of the past. As
soon as language is written down it becomes the ultimate form
of self-alienation and overcoming it is the highest task of
understanding (Gadamer 2004a, 392). For example; if I wrote
about a reflective experience as a researcher or when returning
to a participant’s narrative account at a later date there would
be a raised consciousness of my own history, experience and
perception of language used. The sense of now being opened up
to new interpretation and understanding gained through
temporal distance; reading the text, identifying and revealing
assumptions, the reader involved and observing the unfamiliar
text held as fiction enabling the ‘…realities of the text as they
happen…’ to unfold (Iser 1972, 221). Understanding therefore
oscillates between finding ‘consistency’ with pre-conceptions
and new but alien ideas (Iser 1972). The interpreter has to lift
the restrictions placed consciously or not onto the meaning of
the text itself. In seeking balance, meaning and understanding
of text needs to start out with certain expectations which allows
for what is integral to the aesthetic experience and engaging
surprise, frustration and challenge (Iser 1972).

Authenticity
Gadamer opens up the enquiry by articulating the situatedness
of Dasein and what is involved in the process of understanding.
When human beings are ‘being-in-the-world’ Dasein is aware of
the world and immersed within it, a unitary phenomenon of
sharing the world with other people (the ‘they-self’). We are
‘thrown’ into the world whether we like it or not, with a variety
of resources (or not) for survival, competition and co-operation
(Gadamer 2004a). This shared ‘concern’ for the world is by
caring, thinking, doing, contemplating theories of
understanding (presence-at-hand), and making use of
something such as language (Gadamer 2004a).
An interpreter’s reading and understanding of narrative falls
against this backdrop of understanding due to the constant but
necessary state of ‘being-with-others.’ Despite a human being
orientated to develop their own potential the effects of being
surrounded by other people relates to states of ‘in-authenticity’
294
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

and ‘authenticity’ (Heidegger 2003; Gadamer 2004a). Aspects of

life are embraced without question to differentiate Dasein from
the masses (Gadamer 2004a). In so doing, in-authenticity refers
to Dasein’s un-awakened state and sense of themselves in the
world, in particular when accepting social norms, personal
traits, habits, beliefs, values and prejudices of society (2004a).
Authenticity becomes relevant whilst searching for meaning
and interpretation of life resulting in fundamental questions
being raised when attempting to understand the individual self;
what values, beliefs, pre-suppositions affect Dasein’s openness
to engage with the text, even if their views are entrenched and
ideological. The effects of other people on Dasein’s worldview
questions the state of authenticity and being motivated to
continue in fear of exposure (2004a).
Gadamer challenges Heidegger’s notion of Dasein’s authenticity
when removed from the distracting effect of other people or mit-
dasein (with others) (2004a). His view of inter-subjectivity is
that other people do not limit an understanding of Dasein
(ourselves) which is evident when turning to other people for
advice, feedback and ideas. First, Gadamer suggests testing
ideas on other people, such as in the research process, is part of
the process of learning to understand the prejudices informing
our own judgements. Second, we realise through dialogue that
others have good cause to disagree with us and we find new
ways to accommodate new thinking (2004a). A central principle
therefore of Gadamer’s work is holding oneself open to
conversation with others (Palmer and Michelfelder 1989). This
may demonstrate not only where Dasein went right or wrong
but also shows the true elements of Dasein itself (Gadamer
2004a).

Fore-understanding
Gadamer suggests recognising the interpreting readers
prejudice gives hermeneutics its ‘‘…real thrust…” (Gadamer
2004a, 272). The (interpreter) working out their own pre-
suppositions (fore-having, fore-sight, fore-conception) should be
the ‘‘…first, last and constant task…” when attempting to
understand the relevant issues (Gadamer 2004a, 269). The
romantic enlightenment brought with it the discrediting of
295
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

prejudice due to the Cartesian doubt of accepting nothing as

certain and a ‘methodology to match’ (Gadamer 2004a, 274).
Gadamer identifies the concept of prejudice or praejudicium as
a good starting point to affect the hermeneutic circle, defining a
temporal judgment that is ‘‘…rendered before all the elements
that determine a situation have been finally examined…”
(Gadamer 2004a, 269). This is in contrast to health and social
care practitioners professionally socialised to believe in the
Rogerian notion of being non-judgemental, however it refers
also to developing an objective awareness of belief systems. The
term praejudicium refers to judgements, pre-supposition, bias,
prejudices from cultural traditions, whether positive or
negative (Gadamer 2004b, 31). They are necessary
springboards towards better understanding where even vague
notions of a texts meaning are important because they ensure
the familiarity of words and ‘construal’ of its meaning (291).
The ‘expectation’ of what has been experienced before gives the
interpreter a working hypothesis from which to further develop
understanding (291).
When returning to the text (as an interpreting researcher),
understanding may be heightened by the temporal distance and
time to think about how the text makes sense with what one
already knows. Gadamer suggests therefore that understanding
is ultimately self-understanding and any unchallenged pre-
suppositions only serve to maintain a restrictive interpretation
of the text (Gadamer 2004a, 251). The search for understanding
requires the interpreter’s awareness of their own bias and pre-
conceptions affecting the habit of projecting a meaning for the
text as a whole as soon as initial meaning is grasped (Gadamer
2004a, 269). The main issue therefore identifies that in order to
read a text the interpreter has to have an understanding of
their own expectations about what a word or phrase means in
relation to the parts and the whole of meaning (2004a).
The constant task of understanding is being aware of pre-
conceptions, naïve hypothesising, self awareness, whilst being
simultaneously open to other options which ‘‘…emerge side by
side…” until the meaning becomes clearer (Gadamer 2004a,
269). A search for understanding is therefore the working out of
pre-conceptions, the openness of the hermeneutic process
296
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

overcoming the limitations of bias (2004a). Gadamer recalls the

hermeneutic rule inspired by ancient rhetoric ‘‘…that we must
understand the whole in terms of the detail…” and vice versa
(291). In doing so the reader initiates the hermeneutic circle
(Schleiermacher in Gadamer 2004a, 291). The engagement of
the hermeneutic circle therefore has objective and subjective
resonance to the interpreter as the single word connects to a
sentence belonging to the context of the author’s whole life and
work (Schleiermacher in Gadamer 2004a, 291). The text is more
like a real conversation between the author and reader and like
any real conversation hermeneutics binds both together, not
because the text is a tool for reaching understanding but
because of the interpreter’s motivation to engage in the
conversation until understanding is satisfactorily
accommodated (Gadamer 2004a, 389). If one fails to understand
the nuances of narrative meaning, then the hermeneutic
conversation fails to reach its full potential to grasp the whole
of meaning, with the interpreter’s own understanding
remaining at a fixed level (2004a).

Habermas and Gadamer

Gadamer suggested enhancing human objectivity and
understanding Dasein can be found in the pre-requisite
conditions of historicity and prejudice (Piercey 2004, 260). This
was questioned by Jurgen Habermas (1971) suggesting it was
naïve to claim that the hermeneutic circle could reveal all fore-
structures of prejudice affecting new interpretations (Ricoeur
1991; Gadamer 2004b, 31). For Habermas enquiry should not
be subject to the restrictive authority of tradition (historicity)
because humans are conditioned by a variety of interests and
‘‘…basic orientations rooted in specific fundamental conditions
of the possible reproduction and self-constitution of the
species…” (Habermas 1971, 176). Enquiry is essentially the
working out of ideological illusions through the notion of
tradition [historicity] which reduces the ability for critique
(176). To Habermas the ‘‘…legitimacy of prejudice…validated
by tradition…conflicts with…the power of reflection…which
…reject(s) the claim of traditions…authority and knowledge do
not converge…” (Habermas 1980, 170). Ricoeur entered into the
297
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

debate by suggesting Habermas’s critique of ideologies and

theory of interests hinged on the same pre-suppositions as
hermeneutics and tradition. Habermas’s critique was rather
incoherent and hypocritical by wrongly assuming Gadamer
meant tradition as an acceptance of what is past without
critique, the objectification of prejudice the ‘‘…profoundest aim
of discourse…” (Ricoeur 1991, 299). Gadamer’s response was to
suggest that some pre-suppositions are actually accurate, so it
is up to the reader to identify the fusion of horizons and shared
understanding of text or speech and issues are entirely
dependent on engaging openly with text and dialogue within
the hermeneutic circle.

Historicity
To Gadamer, tradition and history are never settled or correctly
interpreted but understood by the interpreter’s ever changing
horizon (2004a). The profound concept of historicity and
understanding is that we are thrown into a world that has a
historical context, which becomes better understood as Dasein
matures in time (2004a). We are composed of this world and
context, our essence is already in this all surrounding and
ancient world, temporally and unavoidably not of our own
making (2004a). We are born with a past even as we begin to
know we exist and have the ability to think and wonder
adapting to the world as it is. This is evident by the phrase the
‘biological clock’ which ticks away long before we are aware of
our own mortality. Therefore, we study history in so far as we
ourselves are historical (2004a). This reduces the risk of being
self absorbed and forgetting about history whilst also allowing
us to remain naive and re-present the past into the present and
future (Gadamer 2004a).
Dasein’s throwness into historicity ensures the past as
potential leads at all times to Dasein’s futurity with the sharing
of cultural information and learning from others ensuring a
sense of belonging in the high stakes of social competition
(Gadamer 2004a, 252; Flinn 2006). Cultural information is
what Heidegger and Gadamer refers to as Dasein’s historicality
(2004a). However, Gadamer disagrees with Heidegger by
suggesting the real purpose of Dasein is to co-operate for
298
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

mutual benefit with other Dasein [mitsein] (Gadamer 2004a).

Dasein’s awareness of tradition; the individual and shared
historical past, present and future identifies Dasein’s innate
need for protection in the human family in the form of intense
parenting; learning through developing social relationships,
being taught how to care and love, taught how to predict risk
and threat from others (Flinn 2006). This is evident in the
phenomenon of plastic neural pruning (an infant’s brain
changes) when adapting to the local community, such as its
language, to name a few (Flinn 2006). The linguistic tradition
enables the ‘handing down’ of traditional information of
relevance to the interpreter’s frame of reference and how what
is read, written, spoken or heard is interpreted (Gadamer
2004a). Language therefore enables the information process to
become ontologically specific to the interpreter, depending on
the culture (Bildung) to be shared, learnt and accommodated
(2004a).

Temporality
Gadamer proposed that the interpreter’s own historicity and
temporality affects all interpretation of speech and text (2004a).
The transient nature of speech pragmatically moves on when
the message is revealed with meaning resonating within the
interpreter’s own existing temporal understanding (2004a).
What (information) is handed down culturally needs to be
meaningful in order to be accommodated for future use (2004a).
Perhaps the naivety of using the ‘superiority’ of the present to
view the past means there is no such thing as the present
perspective but a constantly changing horizon of future and
past (2004a). Here and now time resonates due to the effect of
immediacy and only when it fades into the past can true
meaning be acknowledged (Gadamer 2004a). What has gone
before and how the present is interpreted affects Dasein’s
temporal future and being authentically aware means engaging
with past reflective experiences and opening up retrospective
analysis to inform not only Dasein’s past but the present and
future life (2004a). This parallels the experience of reading
Gadamer’s body of work being more clearly understood through
subsequent readings and over time revealing the temporal field
299
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

of historicity itself (Ricoeur 1991). Temporality, therefore

becomes the supportive ground in which the process of the past
and present are rooted; ‘time’ the productive possibility of
custom and tradition aiding understanding by illuminating
what presents itself (Heidegger 2003; Gadamer 2004a).
Contrary to contemporary ideas of memory recall, Gadamer
(2004a, 290) suggests the passage of time actually promotes
understanding and objective analysis of experiences by a
process of ‘temporal distance,’ when feelings and phenomena
associated with an experience become more distant. An
example may be when returning to a reflective diary entry after
a difficult experience and issues become clearer with the
distance of time without the added distraction of emotion. This
is what Gadamer refers to as the ‘‘…hermeneutic significance of
temporal distance…” (Gadamer 2004a, 290). The process
therefore reciprocates through the hermeneutic circle, as a
thread runs along the text as fore-meaning becomes manifest in
relation to what is read (Piercey 2004, 260).

Playing
In order to address criticism of hermeneutics inadequacy in
dealing with entrenched ideology (Habermas 1980), Gadamer
referred to the concept of play, taken from aesthetics of
experiencing art (Gadamer 2004a, 102). What is important in
this process is the mode of Dasein in play itself, play fulfills its
purpose if the player ‘‘…loses himself in the play…” and is not a
‘spoilsport’ (102-3). Playing is Dasein’s motivation to be open to
possibilities and suspend disbelief and still read on. Notably,
Gadamer (2004a, 103) reinforces the metaphorical use of the
word play with the everyday meaning of
‘‘...language…perform(ing) in advance the abstraction...that is
the task of conceptual analysis…” The next process involves
time to think and reflect with the concept of play occurring as
both interpreter and author wish to play whilst both knowing
about the game in motion. The author produces work to be read
(or transcribed narrative), as a dialogue with others risking
scrutiny, agreement or otherwise. It is his work as it goes to
print, his opinion temporally and historically informed, with
the understanding that his future opinions may change or
300
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

reinforce the importance of the game itself over the subjectivity

of the players (Gadamer 2004a; 2004b). Aware of the subject,
the players as in any game have a choice when, where, with
whom and for how long to play it, returning freely to it in future
engagements (temporally) with the text. If a player comes from
another game, they are filled with their own ideas (tradition);
they may be resistant or even hostile (ideologically) but become
motivated by the game itself. In time, disbelieving ideas may
dissolve so long as there is game on (Gadamer 2004a). Play
therefore has a personal and scholastic resonance, opening up
the possibilities to shape new understanding.

In conclusion
Gadamer’s concepts of pre-supposition, inter-subjectivity,
authenticity, temporality, tradition and history have been
discussed in relation to reading, understanding and
interpretation. The centrality of the health and social care
researcher in qualitative methodology ensures that the same
methods are employed when interpreting Gadamer’s
philosophical hermeneutics and research participants’
narrative. Gadamer’s work has been criticised as
phenomenological description by the legal historian Emilio
Betti (Gadamer 2004a, 512) but the response was clear and
precise. Seeking to analyse and articulate not what ought to
happen as a methodology but what does happen and ‘is the case’
of hermeneutic analysis. The conditions Gadamer expands upon
can all be applied in the reflective actions of an interpreter’s
experience with the spoken word and (transcribed) written
language. Gadamer realised ‘‘…something crooked should be
straightened…” namely the folly of scientific methodology
which does not take into consideration the human conditions of
historicity and prejudice (Gadamer 2004a, 559). In contrast to a
method of certainty, Gadamer proposed that out of the
interpreter’s uncertainty and notion of play; prejudice, fusion of
horizons and temporal distancing to name but a few key
concepts, the interpreter/ researcher needs to work out any pre-
suppositions they may have as the ‘‘…first, last and constant
task…” of the hermeneutic method (Gadamer 2004a, 269). In
doing so the process opens up interpretation to the many
301
META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (2) / 2012

alternate possibilities of the text and towards new

understanding.

REFERENCES

Alexander, D. R. and Numbers, R. L. (eds). 2010. Biology and

Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins. University of Chicago
Press: Chicago.
Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:
Choosing Among Five Traditions. Second edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flinn, M. V. 2006. ‘‘Evolution and Ontogeny of Stress Response
to Social Challenges in the Human Child.” Developmental
Review 26: 138–174.
Gadamer, H. G. 2004a. Truth and Method. Second edition.
London: Sheed and Ward Stagbooks.
Gadamer, H. G. 2004b. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Translated
and edited by D. E. Linge. Second edition, Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests.
Translated by J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. 1980. ‘‘The Hermeneutic Claim to Universality.”
In Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method,
Philosophy, and Critique, edited by Joseph Bleicher. London
and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Heidegger, M. 1992. History of the Concept of Time:
Prolegamena. Translated by Theodore Kisiel. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Heidegger, M. 2003. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.
Iser, W. 1972. ‘‘The Reading Process: A Phenomenological
Approach.” New Literary Theory 3: 279-299.
Palmer, R. E. 1969. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in
Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
302
 Paul Regan / Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics

Palmer, R. E., and D. Michelfelder. 1989. ‘‘Text and

Interpretation.” In Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer-
Derrida encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Piercey, R. 2004. ‘‘Ricoeur's Account of Tradition and the
Gadamer–Habermas Debate. September.” Human Studies 27
(3): 259-280.
Ricoeur, P. 1991. From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Paul Regan is a senior lecturer in adult nursing at the University of Central

Lancashire. His background is in adult, mental health nursing and health
visiting. Paul Regan has written about reflective practice, group work, clinical
supervision, the use of annotation in higher education, practice development and
innovation, peri-natal depression, the United Kingdom healthcare reforms and
the market economy and promoting patients right to vote. Paul has a keen
interest in European philosophy and phenomenology applied to the experiences of
nursing practice.

Address:
Paul Regan
University of Central Lancashire
Brook building, Victoria St
Preston, PR1 2HE
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1772893616
E-mail: PJRegan@uclan.ac.uk

303

View publication stats