Corey's Email
The hermeneutic circle, which claims that the meaning of the
parts is dependent on the meaning of the whole and vis versa, fails to
recognize the most important aspect of the interpretation process, namely
that there must be one who is doing the interpreting. Meaning is not a
relation between the parts and the whole of a single object, but
rather a relation between an object and a subject; between the
interpreted and the interpreter. Meaning is not an objective fact, but a
subjective interpretation. In other words, we do not discover meaning,
but
ascribe meaning.
This is by no means, however, solely an individual process.
Meaning
is a product of social interaction and conflict--it is a social
construct.
As children, we are "socialized" to the collective meaning which our
particular society ascribes to the various aspects of our social worlds,
such as things and ideas: "That is bad/good," "This is a dog," etc.
However, I need not accept, conform to, or even have knowledge of social
definitions in order for something to have meaning for me.
Take for example my interpretation of Husserl's "Philosophy as
Rigorous Science." I don't have to recognize this as a piece of
philosophical literature for it to have meaning for me. I don't have to
know the basic ideas which organize the whole, nor do I have to know the
meaning of any of the parts. I can ascribe to it any meaning I wish
(theoretically). Without having read it, my interpretation of it would
most likely be far different than Husserl's or the rest of society's, but
it would have meaning for me nonetheless. It may be interpreted merely
as a meaningless object of my perception, but this is a type of
meaning in itself. As I read its parts, and eventually analyze its
whole, my interpretation would most likely come closer to that of the
general
population of Husserl readers. Its meaning changes as I study it more
and
gain a better understanding of its contents. This process is also never
complete. I can read Husserl over and over again, gaining a better
understanding each time and refining the meaning it has for me.
Likewise
for society as a whole. Meaning is fluid and contestable.
Therefore, as discussed by Professor Martin, interpretation must
begin
with your own prejudices. Every interpretation is from a particular
point of view and, therefore, relative to the interpreter's accepted
system of values, which are, in turn, inevitably grounded within a
socially constructed system of meaning. It is irrelevant whether these
prejudices limit or blind interpretation. What is important is that the
interpretation has meaning for the interpreter. Meaning is not dependent
on objective truth.