Interpretation as Performance

In exploring this mode of truth, we have seen Gadamer turn to the work in two overlapping modes, the classic text and the work of art.  In doing so he first distinguishes the performance arts, such as drama and music, from the nonperformance arts, such as literature; then he breaks down this distinction by suggesting that reading is a kind of performing.  The difference is that in the case of the (obviously) performing arts the primary interpreter, the actor who plays Hamlet or the pianist who plays the Hammerklavier Sonata, presents an interpretation to the audience, while in the case of the (apparently) nonperforming art the readers (note the plural) of a novel, short story, or poem present an interpretation of teh work to themselves. (1503-8)

All performance is interpretation and all interpretation is performance. (1514-15)

Gadamer repeatedly stresses that classic texts speak to us, address us, make claims on us about what is right and good and true.  In this respect they are more like persons with whom we engage in conversation than objects we subject to some methodical observation.  So we have one more model of interpretation. It is like 1) performing a play or sonata; 2) translating from one language into another; 3) applying the law to a particular, concrete situation; 4) applying a scriptural text to the life of believers; and now 5) carrying on a conversation.  The goal in every case is understanding. (1741-45)

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Kindle Ed.)

Multiple Perspectives

Should those of us interested in interpreting the Bible assimilate its texts to a series of equations? Doesn't the Bible point us in a different direction by telling us that we need four different interpretations of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as well as epistles interpreting the Christ event by a variety of authors?

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Loc. 768-70 Kindle Ed.)

Romantic Hermeneutics

1. Deregionalization - Schleiermacher set out to develop a general hermeneutics that would apply to culturally significant texts regardless of their subject matter.  He sought to identify the general features of interpretation that were common to rather than distinctive of the various disciplines.

2. The Hermeneutical Circle - The notion that the parts always have to be interpreted in terms of the whole--and vice versa.

3. Psychologism - It begins with the assumption that language is primarily to be understood as the outer expression of the inner psychic life.  This hermeneutics is often labeled "romantic" because it shares this expressivism with the wider cultural traditions call romanticism.  The goal of interpretation, then, is to reverse the process of writing, to work back from the outer expression to the inner experience, to reconstruct, re-create, refeel, reexperience, relive that inner experience.

4. Objectivism - Dilthey is especially insistent that interpretation be "scientific" so that its findings may be "objective" and rise to the level of "universal validity."  The prestige and power of the natural sciences seem to suggest that rational respectability requires that the disciplines that relate to distinctly human meaning (Geisteswissenschaften, humanities, human sciences) must aspire to a comparable objectivity, especially against the possibility of some sort of historical relativism.

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Kindle Ed.)

Chastened Epistemology

We need not think that hermeneutical despair ("anything goes") and hermeneutical arrogance (we have "the" interpretation) are the only alternatives.  We can acknowledge that we see and interpret "in a glass, darkly" or "in a mirror, dimly" and that we know "only in part" (1 Cor. 13:12), while ever seeking to understand and interpret better by combining the tools of scholarship with the virtues of humbly listening to the interpretations of others and above all to the Holy Spirit.

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Loc. 174-178 Kindle Ed.)

Metaphors are the Spice of Life

Literalists, maybe especially religious literalists, have a difficult time with metaphors. A metaphor is a word that makes an organic connection from what you can see to what you can't see. In any conversation involving God, whom we can't see, metaphors are invaluable for keeping language vivid and immediate. Without metaphors we are left with colorless abstractions and vague generalities.

Eugene Peterson, Practice Resurrection, Loc. 55-58 (Kindle Edition)

Symbolism and Revelation

Revelation is more like a map: and a map, once we learn the symbols it uses, is actually of more use to us than an aerial photograph would be.

N.T. Wright, Small Faith--Great God, Loc. 60-61 (Kindle Edition)

Augustine and figurative meaning

Any harsh and even cruel word or deed attributed to God or his saints that is found in the holy scriptures applies to the destruction of the realm of lust [i.e. it is to be taken only figuratively].

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.39