Study Programme Student Number Name of Student Title of Thesis Supervisor Second Reader Comments 1. Set-up and framing of
research
- quality of outline and research questions + relevance to development of scientific field - legitimation and explanation of theoretical/historical framework and method - evidence of general knowledge and critical evaluation of
national/international developments in the field and its history
2. Execution of research
- professional nature and quality of the (practical) execution of the research - ability to find, process and critically assess relevant academic material and
documentation, ability to develop own position in relation to these + ability to provide solutions for problems
- originality/creativity of
Master's in Literature and Education 11728310
Diana M. Obreja
The Motives behind Major Categories of Hermeneutics formulated in the 20th Century Dr. Jeff Diamanti
Obreja frames the research with a question that implies already an interesting claim about how readers select
interpretive modes based on a range of motivations. Thinking about interpretation this way already imagines agency on the part of the reader, thus avoiding the trap of interpretive essentialism so cumbersome to reader response theory in particular. By then moving across some of the dominant positions animating debates about interpretation in today’s international academy—surface reading, close reading, symptomatic reading—Obreja firmly anchors this project in contemporary research and demonstrates a facility with the distinctions that mark each position. The range of interpretive differences named by each position is demonstrated
compellingly in the case study on *Lord of the Flies,* which neatly demonstrates what Obreja has meant by "motivation" all along.
Second reader: Obreja's thesis is a well-written thesis, presenting an attempt to give an overview of 20th century literary theory under the perspective of 'motives'. Departing fomr a historical perspective, the thesis identifies - sometimes more, sometimes less convincing - motives such as
"pleasure," "morality," "rationality" which, while they are all of interest, seem to be rather vaguely motived. The thesis presents an overview over often complex material but, as for the broad scope, lacks depth in the actual analysis of any of the mentioned theoretical approach. The final case study on Golding's "Lord of the Flies" appears to be rather schematic. While aiming for an ambitious goal, the thesis here and there turns out to be overly schematic, giving little room for close analysis, neither of a singular eamaple of what we call "literary theory" nor of the literary text chosen as a case study.
Obreja executes the research with a remarkable degree of consistency and focus. This is evidenced by the structure she creates for her herself, each section of the thesis split in three in order to read comparatively and to develop the analysis across interpretive frameworks. Obreja anchors her analysis to very recent articles and special issues of leading literary theory journals in the United States and builds her analysis in
dialogue with interlocutors such as Rita Felski, Fredric
Jameson, Paul Ricoeur, Ben Marcus, and Sharon Best (8-19). These are the primary figures in the field post-70s. Moreover, they are enormously difficult to work with individually let alone as a critical archive. Therefore the research is made timely and critical, and firmly grasps the state of the field since in naming these three dominant forms of “modern hermeneutics,” Obreja has anchored her thesis to the very centre of
- quality and depth of theorisation, analysis and/or case studies
3. Organisation
- quality and logic of argumentative build-up (i.e. substantiated conclusions with regard to the research
questions)
- clear and coherent structure (at thesis, chapter, section, paragraph and sentence level)
- correct use of required style guide (e.g.
footnotes, bibliography) - required length 4. Language use - Correct formulation (grammar, spelling, vocabulary, terminology and style) 5. Presentation - Referencing and bibliography in accordance with consistently applied/required professional style - Clear design/layout - Relevance and effectiveness of tables/illustrations 6. Independence
simultaneously, and a subsidiary attention to the motivations that get expressed based on interpretive choices—is that it shifts the terms of the debate from the object back to the social subject, therefore avoiding the sectarianism of literary theory, and also paving the way for very promising pedagogical techniques in the classroom.
Second reader: The thesis is well-written and certainly well-accessible. Also, the material considered is certainly understood and work-through competently. As mentioned, however, the broadness of the thesis simplifies the a vast field of literary theory rather often.
Each section is organized coherently and deliberately according to the tripartite system of analysis Obreja sets herself. At times the structure is actually too strong, preventing the author from zooming out from the analysis and narrating the arc of the argument as it has been developing (as on pages 9-12 and the overview of modernism and
postmodernism according to Harvey). There are also fairly large leaps in logic that at times get in the way of the analysis, in part because they occur at crucial moments in the thesis when primary concepts are being developed, historicized, or compared. For instance, Obreja suggests that “With
Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, the world also starts to doubt consciousness” (9). While the idea that consciousness is called into question by these three critical theorists is right, what’s not so clear is how “the world” itself begins to doubt consciousness. At a different angle, Obreja at times relies too heavily on long paraphrases of complex ideas, thinkers, and clusters of thought. Obreja obviously has a great ability to read for the critical core of different theories, but needs at times to evaluate and position herself in relation to these paraphrases. For instance, when she says “Fundamentally, what was called the hermeneutics of suspicion in Marx and Freud gradually led to the formulation of a type of interpretation known as
symptomatic reading” (13), from the phrasing that neither Marx nor Freud called their methods “the hermeneutics of suspicion” or that symptomatic reading (which Obreja otherwise
understands at a very advanced level) doesn’t understand itself as being particularly suspicious. However, these are mostly problems that emerge from a less than careful style of writing, which can be addressed fairly easily.
Second reader: In my eyes, the rigidity with which the thesis is organized is worth being praised, as - for the risk of
simplification - the thesis makes a true attempt to break down a complex field of 'motives' into a series of straight-forwardly organized arguments. This enhances the readability as much as clarity.
No spelling errors but there are a number of grammatical errors and an overreliance on passive voice.
Second reader: As mentioned, the thesis is well-written and accessible.
All good.
formulate and analyse relevant problems independently - constructive response to feedback Grade Explanation and
justification of the grade
Date
Signature supervisor
Signature 2nd reader
for the thesis and a rough outline. Obreja move through the research and theory with great independence.
Second reader: The approach is carried out independently and in an original fashion, while - as mentioned - risking
simplification and schematization where it might not necessarily always be appropriate.
interpretation this way already imagines agency on the part of the reader, thus avoiding the trap of interpretive essentialism so cumbersome to reader response theory in particular. By then moving across some of the dominant positions animating debates about interpretation in today’s international academy—surface reading, close reading, symptomatic reading—Obreja firmly anchors this project in contemporary research and demonstrates a facility with the distinctions that mark each position. The range of interpretive differences named by each position is demonstrated compellingly in the case study on *Lord of the Flies,* which neatly demonstrates what Obreja has meant by "motivation" all along.
Second reader: Obreja's thesis is a well-written thesis, presenting an attempt to give an overview of 20th century literary theory under the perspective of 'motives'. Departing from a historical perspective, the thesis identifies - sometimes more, sometimes less convincing - motives such as "pleasure," "morality," "rationality" which, while they are all of interest, seem to be rather vaguely motived. The thesis presents an overview over often complex material but, as for the broad scope, lacks depth in the actual analysis of any of the mentioned theoretical approach. The final case study on Golding's "Lord of the Flies" appears to be rather schematic. While aiming for an ambitious goal, the thesis here and there turns out to be overly schematic, giving little room for close analysis, neither of a singular example of what we call "literary theory" nor of the literary text chosen as a case study.
___
Obreja executes the research with a remarkable degree of consistency and focus. This is
evidenced by the structure she creates for her herself, each section of the thesis split in three in order to read comparatively and to develop the analysis across interpretive frameworks. Obreja anchors her analysis to very recent articles and special issues of leading literary theory journals in the United States and builds her analysis in dialogue with interlocutors such as Rita Felski, Fredric Jameson, Paul Ricoeur, Ben Marcus, and Sharon Best (8-19). These are the primary figures in the field post-70s. Moreover, they are enormously difficult to work with individually let alone as a critical archive. Therefore the research is made timely and critical, and firmly grasps the state of the field since in naming these three dominant forms of “modern
hermeneutics,” Obreja has anchored her thesis to the very centre of contemporary debates about interpretation and method.
The originality of the position Obreja assumes—namely an argument for the embrace of
multiple interpretive frameworks simultaneously, and a subsidiary attention to the motivations that get expressed based on interpretive choices—is that it shifts the terms of the debate from the object back to the social subject, therefore avoiding the sectarianism of literary theory, and also paving the way for very promising pedagogical techniques in the classroom.
the broadness of the thesis simplifies the a vast field of literary theory rather often.
Each section is organized coherently and deliberately according to the tripartite system of analysis Obreja sets herself. At times the structure is actually too strong, preventing the author from zooming out from the analysis and narrating the arc of the argument as it has been developing (as on pages 9-12 and the overview of modernism and postmodernism according to Harvey). There are also fairly large leaps in logic that at times get in the way of the analysis, in part because they occur at crucial moments in the thesis when primary concepts are being developed, historicized, or compared. For instance, Obreja suggests that “With Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, the world also starts to doubt consciousness” (9). While the idea that consciousness is called into question by these three critical theorists is right, what’s not so clear is how “the world” itself begins to doubt consciousness. At a different angle, Obreja at times relies too heavily on long paraphrases of complex ideas, thinkers, and clusters of thought. Obreja
obviously has a great ability to read for the critical core of different theories, but needs at times to evaluate and position herself in relation to these paraphrases. For instance, when she says “Fundamentally, what was called the hermeneutics of suspicion in Marx and Freud gradually led to the formulation of a type of interpretation known as symptomatic reading” (13), from the phrasing that neither Marx nor Freud called their methods “the hermeneutics of suspicion” or that symptomatic reading (which Obreja otherwise understands at a very advanced level) doesn’t understand itself as being particularly suspicious. However, these are mostly problems that emerge from a less than careful style of writing, which can be addressed fairly easily. Second reader: In my eyes, the rigidity with which the thesis is organized is worth being praised, as - for the risk of simplification - the thesis makes a true attempt to break down a complex field of 'motives' into a series of straight-forwardly organized arguments. This enhances the readability as much as clarity.
__
No spelling errors but there are a number of grammatical errors and an overreliance on passive voice.
Second reader: As mentioned, the thesis is well-written and accessible. All good.
Second reader: Very good. __
research and theory with great independence.
Second reader: The approach is carried out independently and in an original fashion, while - as mentioned - risking simplification and schematization where it might not necessarily always be appropriate.
The Motives behind Major Categories of Hermeneutics
formulated in the 20th Century
by Diana M. Obreja
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
in English
Department of Literary Studies: Literature and Education University of Amsterdam
June, 2018
Table of Contents
Table of Contents……….……....3
Introduction……….…………...5
I. Basic methods of hermeneutics: a modern historical overview and three motives that govern them………...8
1.1. Hermeneutics of suspicion in the twentieth century……….………....8
1.2. Symptomatic reading………...13
1.3. Surface reading………....16
1.4. The motives behind the basic methods of hermeneutics.……....…………19
1.4.1. The motive of pleasure………...19
1.4.2. The motive of morality……….21
1.4.3. The motive of rationality………...23
1.4.4. The motives behind surface reading……….24
II. Levels of hermeneutics: the motives behind interpretation in connection to the aesthetic, the theory and identity……….……….……27
2.1. Aesthetic interpretation……….…..27
2.2. Theoretical interpretation………....32
2.3. Identity interpretation……….….36
III. A case study of Lord of The Flies in connection to the types, levels and motives of
literary interpretation……….44
3.1. Lord of the Flies: suspicious vs. symptomatic vs. surface reading…………..44
3.2. Lord of the Flies: the aesthetic……….…49
3.3. Lord of the Flies: the theory……….52
3.4. Lord of the Flies: identity……….54
Conclusions……….……….……58
Introduction
In the modern sense, interpretation is a means of variation. Whether we interpret something visual, spoken or written, our binoculars will always distort or clarify the object of focus. Susan Sontag makes an argument to this effect in “Against Interpretation” (1966), when she quotes Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations” (p. 4). Through reminding of this quote, Sontag reinforces the notion that interpretation is exceedingly heterogeneous and that two interpretations of the same facet of reality will never be exactly the same. Naturally, the interpretations which are performed within the literary universe are no exceptions to this general observation. In spite of the idea of heterogeneity, literary interpretation reveals certain patterns. These patterns of interpretation further disclose particular motives for which interpreters decide to employ them. This last thought leads me to the main question of this thesis: if we are always interpreting when we are reading, then why do we read the way we read? What are the motives for which we employ a particular method of interpretation or the other for a work of literature? I find these questions relevant because the ways literary works were perceived by different eras, different societies, and different people are what led to a variety of distinctive outcomes. Uncovering the multitude of incentives behind readers’ interpretations of works of literature will help us understand divergent mentalities and the manner in which these mentalities connect to literature as well as to each other and to the world around us.
Moreover, literary interpretation, also known as hermeneutics, has been central to the study of texts for centuries. In medieval times, a type of biblical hermeneutics emerged among religious scholars. Later on, Nietzsche applied a different type of hermeneutics, which dealt with uncertainty and scepticism. This modern category of hermeneutics expanded and gained
prominence, particularly in the following decades, and knew further modifications and divisions.
In the first part of this thesis, I offer a chronological overview of the basic methods of modern hermeneutics: from the modern hermeneutics of suspicion to the postmodern symptomatic reading, followed by surface reading. After detailing the basic commitments of these hermeneutic approaches, I move to a description of the primary motives that are behind these literary interpretative methods: the motives of pleasure, morality, and rationality. In the second part of this thesis, three different levels at which interpretation can be tackled is further analysed: the levels of the aesthetic, the theory, and identity, which reveal another complex series of motives, connected to the interpreters that approach literature at these levels. In the final part of this thesis, I offer a case study of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1954), in order to demonstrate the different methods and motives through which various interpreters can perceive the novel and to fortify the notions that were discussed.
This thesis argues against a view that has been continuously perpetuated in the modern era. This view claims that literary interpretation, as we have known it until now, does not aid to the understanding of the works of literature that we interpret, but rather that it reduces their flexibility and their infinite potential. Sontag, one of the more ardent supporters of this view, demonstrates her adherence to this idea in her 1966 essay:
In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, conformable (p. 5).
On the contrary, I argue the opposite: the multiple categories of literary interpretation do not only offer us more complex and tumultuous perspectives of the literary works which we interpret, but the motives that are connected to these categories also open new angles and new routes. Literary interpretation is an exercise which offers us pleasures, helps us develop our
moral sensibility, and strengthens our mind. Literary interpretation contributes to the sharpening of our artistic senses, to our apprehension of multiple branches of knowledge, and to the encouragement of the understanding and manifestation of diverse identities. All of these ideas will be gradually presented and supported in the following thesis.
I. Basic methods of hermeneutics: a modern historical overview and three motives that govern them
In the first part of this chapter, I offer a presentation on the most noteworthy modern hermeneutic methods that were defined and described by professional interpreters in the twentieth century, with the purpose of establishing formal paths within the map of the interpretative act.
In the second part of this chapter, I connect the established modern methods of hermeneutics with a number of three substantial motives for which they are implemented by most literary interpreters, without making a distinction between professional and lay interpreters.
1.1. Hermeneutics of suspicion in the twentieth century
In his treatise, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (1970), Paul Ricoeur understands hermeneutics as the science of interpretation of the signs within a text, or of the text as a whole (p. 26).
Moreover, Ricoeur splits hermeneutics into two types: one type goes by the name of hermeneutics of trust, which was used by religious scholars in previous centuries. Hermeneutics of trust is a type of hermeneutics that speaks of rational faith, which seeks to disclose a deeper, although naïve meaning of the object. It is a phenomenology of religion whose task is to understand what is intended in rituals, in myths, and in beliefs. According to this phenomenology, there are multiple meanings of the object which are interconnected and eventually come to reach the completion of the language (Ricoeur, 1970, p. 30).
The other type is a hermeneutics through which the interpreter reduces the illusions of the text. Through this category of hermeneutics, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud come in. In Descartes’ world, consciousness is what it appears to be or what it appears to convey. With
Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, the world also starts to doubt consciousness. They are the ones who cast suspicion on the illusions of consciousness, who try to decode it. For these three figures, the relation hidden-shown or simulated-manifested is at the basis of consciousness. This problem of the illusions of consciousness is grasped by Nietzsche in the philosophical search of a balanced will that would lead to an ultimate power. It is tackled by Marx when he confronts the problem of ideologies in the circumstances of an economic downfall. It is conjured by Freud when he decrypts dreams and neurotic symptoms (Ricoeur, 1970, p. 34). Ultimately, this mode of interpretation that belongs to these three voices is, as Ricoeur calls it, “a tactic of suspicion, a battle against masks” (1970, p. 26). Ricoeur means through this statement that, through what is called hermeneutics of suspicion, the literary interpreter struggles to find something that is in the depths of the text and even beyond it in a sceptical manner.
Nevertheless, this encapsulation of hermeneutics of suspicion which is proposed by Ricoeur as the result of a few extraordinary minds is, as Rita Felski argues in her article “Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion” (2012), a bit too narrow (p.3). This last thought is the reason I will narrate about the expansion and variation that the practice of hermeneutics of suspicion goes through in the twentieth century.
In the Condition of Postmodernity (1990), David Harvey describes modernism as a period that starts to shape towards the end of the nineteenth century and continues to dominate until the beginning of the twentieth century, perhaps until after the war. This movement is generally characterized by change, fragmentation, and the ever growing hegemony of urban life (p. 20). At the beginning of the twentieth century, modernism is confronting on the one side a sense of anarchy, despair, and instability. On the other side, modernism develops a feeling of the erotic, the psychological and the irrational need that is imposed by Freud. This modernism describes the impossibility of depicting the world in just one single manner. Comprehension is achieved through multiple routes, by exploring multiple perspectives in order to reach a single,
but very complex underlying truth (Harvey, 1990, p. 30). It is a time in which perspectivism and relativism find their roots and grow, a time that explores both the rational and the irrational. The rational manifests through the technological and scientific evolution of the society, and the irrational is associated with the unstable human subconscious. This time, which is dominated by perspectivism, contributes even more to placing the accent in hermeneutics on the act of unveiling what is hiding beneath the façade, on breaking the illusions of consciousness, on suspicion. This suspicion that previously marked the thoughts of Nietzsche and Marx continues to brand the Freudian inquiry during the modern movement. This suspicion is coupled with a fragmented and subjective perspective as well as with an absolute truth that is still the main force behind all things. As Harvey emphasizes, the modernist individual is alienated and paranoid, but still possesses a coherent sense of the world around, unlike the postmodernist who turns schizophrenic, which is an attribute that will be tackled (1990, p. 54).
After the war, a number of anti-modernist currents emerge, currents which oppose the authoritarian modernist rationality. These anti-modernist currents hang onto new liberal politics, self-realization, and the critique of the daily life. This manifestation reaches a peak in 1968, and around this time, the world turns towards postmodernism (Harvey, 1990, pp. 35-38).
During postmodernism, modernist thoughts are denied, deconstructed, and a conflicting vision on language and communication surfaces. While modernists find a tight and definite relation between what is transmitted and the way in which it is transmitted (signified-signifier), postmodernism sees these factors as separating and reattaching in continuously diverse combinations (Harvey, 1990, p. 49). In the Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern (1998), Fredric Jameson describes this postmodern tendency in which forms of art perpetually duplicate and combine as pastiche. Through pastiche, the artist finds the impossibility of stylistic novelty, therefore art is recreated by using old voices and images. The postmodern creation involves the failure of art and of the new, and presents the condition of the artist that
is stuck in the past (p.7). Furthermore, postmodernists carry on with the modernist ideas of change, fragmentation, ephemerality and chaos in their totality (Harvey, 1990, p. 44). The accent on this extreme fragmentation and unstable language is transposed into a concept of personality. Drawing on Ihab Hassan’s schema on modern-postmodern differences (1985), Harvey uses Jameson’s attribute to characterize this personality as schizophrenic, a personality which deviates from the modernist paranoid and alienated personality. Nevertheless, the schizophrenic sentiment is also present during the modernist movement through the deviation of reason, although this trait is rather latent than manifest (Harvey, 1990, pp. 53-54).
In a final thought, I cannot attest that postmodernism completely opposes modernism. Postmodernism is a reactionary movement to modernism indeed, but it is also a puzzle of expressions at the same time.
Regarding the hermeneutics of this time, a revolutionary position towards the well-established metanarratives of Freudianism, Marxism and various forms of Enlightenment rationale (Harvey, 1990, p. 42) surfaces. An acceptance towards what has been unexplored before, towards the worlds of minorities and of the oppressed is promoted. On one side, voices like Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard explicitly oppose the Marxist and Freudian metanarratives that explain the nature of all things. Unlike in modernism, a universal truth does not exist, and if it does, this truth cannot be attained anymore. In 1972, Foucault sees in systems of knowledge and discourses methods of control and domination. Institutional settings like hospitals, schools, and offices of psychologists are places where discourses of repression enfold. Lyotard is preoccupied with language games and codes which are used by different people in order to fit into different situations. These language games are used by those who operate in particular institutional or cultural contexts (Harvey, 1990, pp. 45-47).
Jacques Derrida, through the movement that is called deconstructionism, further stimulates the postmodern manner through which readers interpret texts. This movement claims
that an author writes texts based on the information that he has gathered from older texts, but does so unconsciously. The author does not have power upon most information that he invokes in his work, which is why the act of imposing canonical meanings upon the text is futile. An interpreter must seek in the text for echoes of other texts and for other meanings, in an attempt to deconstruct the linearity of the discourse. Deconstructionism leads to a double reading: of the text that is comprehended in relation to a previous text, and of the text that is perceived into a new context. There is no fixed system of representation. Nevertheless, while these postmodern voices argue against the modernist Marxist and Freudian metanarratives because of their rigid nature, Harvey contends that the discourses of Marx (and tacitly Freud) are not exactly rigid, since they include particular combinations of knowledge as well (1990, p. 51).
On another side, the powerful presence of Marx and Freud can be remarked during postmodernism in notable essays on interpretation that are formulated during this time. These essays place importance on the Marxist and Freudian methods of reading beyond the lines, albeit at a different or deconstructed level. Paul Ricoeur writes in 1970 one of the first major treatises on hermeneutics, essentially taking into view the Freudian pattern of analysis. A few years later, Fredric Jameson’s publication The Political Unconscious (1981), which deals with outlining a method of interpretation that is based on the hermeneutics of Marx and Freud, becomes particularly famous among the literary critics in the United States. Stephen Best and Sharon Marcus speak in their article which is titled “Surface Reading: An Introduction” (2009) of the one factor that has enabled this method of interpretation to gain magnitude. This factor is the acceptance of psychoanalysis and Marxism as metalanguages (p.1). Fundamentally, what is called the hermeneutics of suspicion of Marx and Freud gradually leads to the formulation of another type of interpretation that becomes known as symptomatic reading.
1.2.Symptomatic reading
Symptomatic reading arises in the postmodern period in works such as Ricoeur’s book on Freud, Louis Althusser’s Reading Capital (1968), which focuses on Marx’s hermeneutics, and ultimately, Jameson’s Political Unconscious, which draws symptomatic reading out of the former two works and popularizes it during the eighties. This method of interpretation, according to Jameson, refers to the presumption that the text can never mean what it clearly says. Through this, Jameson creates the image of the literary critic in his struggle to discover the true significations of a text or at least impose a meaningful interpretation on it, which is one of the reasons for the substantial impact that this method had among the critics of the eighties (Best & Marcus, 2009, p. 5).
Furthermore, Best and Marcus frame symptomatic reading as a type of interpretation which resorts to seeking the latent behind the manifest and bringing what is placed within the depths of the text to the surface. Symptomatic readers do not only focus on minor elements in the text, but also read into the gaps of it, asking themselves what those absences could possibly mean. Best and Marcus characterize symptomatic reading with the aid of certain pairs of opposite terms such as “present/absent, manifest/latent, and surface/depth” (2009, p.4). With respect to these complementary notions, Jameson perceives absence as being an essential characteristic of the text. On the one side, the Althusser-Marxist influence leads Jameson to connect this absence to a historical action. For Jameson, history is the primary and only absence: the critic sees the history behind the text and brings it to the surface. On the other side, the Freudian influence guides Jameson to see this historical unconscious as a function of repression, which hides within the contradictions of the text (Best & Marcus, 2009, p. 6).
The act of historicizing the text represents the first symptom that resides at the core of symptomatic reading. This symptom is identified by Christopher Nealon in “Reading on the Left” (2009) as the Marxist Symptom. Nevertheless, Nealon speaks of more than a one-faceted
historical reading of the text. This historical search should not be performed just for revolutionary acts, but also for other aspects of the past, as revolutionary acts are not the only ones that can be seen as historically meaningful. Nealon finds this thought among Jameson’s lines on Althusser, in which Jameson makes connections between history, literature and critical reading. Jameson attempts to find a link between the structural causality in the social system and the discrepancies of a heterogeneous literary work, or the schizophrenic literary work, as the postmodern sees it (2009, pp. 24-25). Additionally, from a postmodernist standpoint, the historical search is not about an attempt at a continuity, as postmodernism avoids the modernist idea of progress. By contrast, the postmodernist digs into history in order to connect what he or she discovers there to the actual present (Harvey, 1990, p. 54).
The second symptom of symptomatic reading is the Multiculturalist Symptom, which comes along with the postmodern multicultural expansion during the eighties, particularly in the United States. The multiculturalist symptom, which is influenced by psychoanalysis and the postmodern deconstructionism, seeks to find particularly liberating figures within the text, figures that would stray away from the typical middle-class Caucasian man. Through one of their characteristics, like sexuality or race, these figures would become the new revolutionaries. Nealon describes the multiculturalist symptom as following two different routes: humanist and anti-humanist. On the humanist route, Nealon exemplifies Toni Morrison and her novel,
Playing in the Dark (1992), in which Morrison implements Freudian ideas regarding
displacement and fetishization (2009, p. 28). Nealon pinpoints how Morrison, through her novel, criticizes another literary work, which is Willa Cather’s Saphira and the Slave Girl (1940). Cather’s novel grapples with issues of race, and the main drive behind Morrison’s criticism is that this white author deals with racial issues in relation to herself, not in relation to an authentic historical background. Because of this mistake, the target novel ends up as the loss of a story that would have made the future public better comprehend the problems of race.
Nealon brings to light the symptom in Morrison’s case: the symptom is the forgiveness of Cather’s mistake. This forgiveness would contribute to a process of healing in the American racial history. In this case of symptomatic reading, interpretation expands beyond the category of literature, to that of writer and personhood (2009, p. 29).
On the anti-humanist route, Nealon takes as example Lee Edelman’s Homographesis (1994), a literary work that is both humanist and anti-humanist. Firstly, Homographesis is humanist through its grasp on homophobia and toxic masculinity. Secondly, Edelman’s anti-humanist perspective equates the entire category of gay people with the acts of reading and writing. Their bodies are constantly subjected to interpretation. Moreover, not only homophobia, but also the forced social and cultural identity of the heterosexual man are expressed through language. The symptom that Nealon discerns in Edelman’s Homographesis is the satisfaction that gay men can achieve through a perpetual discourse that threatens male heterosexuality. Through this discourse, gay men ignite a feeling of discomfort and anxiety within the heterosexual community. In relation to this idea, Foucault’s activity also coincides with a multiculturalist symptom, as his work with homosexuals and prisoners is part of a resistance against institutional state practices and organized repression (Harvey, 1990, p. 46). Returning to Best and Marcus, it is worth mentioning that the authors further settle some key points on more recent symptomatic reading. These key points include particular opinions that diverge or contest Jameson’s version of symptomatic reading. Among these opinions, we will remind of Christopher Nealon, who sees the interpretation of the text already happening within the text and considers that one does not need the help of other texts in order to disclose meanings, as meanings are already there. This approach presents an inclination towards another type of interpretation, that of surface reading. In a final mention, Best and Marcus speak of Anne Cheng’s perspective that promotes a reading of multiple surfaces that lie within the text,
instead of a focus on the symptomatic surface-depth contrast (2009, p.9). This lastly guides us to surface reading, which is acknowledged a bit later.
1.3.Surface reading
Harvey upholds that in the era of media and television, there is no surprise that an emphasis arises on surface and on image, rather than on depth (1990, p. 61). The mass production of late capitalism is what influences all forms of art to acquire “a preoccupation with the signifier rather than the signified, with participation, performance, and happening rather than with an authoritative and finished art object, with surface appearance rather than roots” (Harvey, 1990, p. 53). This last idea particularly underlines the importance of external facets during the present time, as well as of the pragmatism with which people now deal with the world. The activity of dwelling beyond surfaces is perceived as impractical and unnecessary.
Best and Marcus clarify that surface reading does not refer to the layer that resides at the surface of the text, or the layer which covers the deeper meanings and must be removed in order to reach them, as understood by the symptomatic readers. Instead, the surface of the text alludes to what is visible, the meanings that are obvious and facile to grasp. Felski calls it defamiliarising the text: the critic will not dig into a number of strata to get to the profound depths, but will simply lay back, distance herself, and observe what is happening on the surface with some kind of ironic wonder (2012, p.2). Furthermore, the surface reader will rather focus on what is present than what is absent, straying away from this symptomatic tendency (Best & Marcus, 2009, p. 11).
Best and Marcus detect a number of types of surface reading that were formulated within the postmodern movement.
The first type visualizes the surface as a materiality, which presents two sides: the historical reading, which speaks of the association between the literary work and the
background in which the literary work is created and employed by the author and public respectively, and the cognitive reading, which alludes to the material that the mind creates for the literary work. This material produces multiple surfaces which eventually come to form the mental objects. These are called the physical conditions that fabricate perception by Elaine Scarry in Dreaming by the Book (1999). The second type visualizes surface as the intricate verbal structure of literary language which understands surface through the density of textual elements (Otter, 2008, p. 119). This type of reading moves from the meanings of the lexical elements in the sentence and text to the meaning of the textual context as a whole (Best & Marcus, 2009, pp. 9-10). Further categorization of surface reading proposes that the interpreter needs to approach surface from an affective standpoint. This means that the text should be taken as it is at a first look, in its pure state (Sontag, 1966, p. 6).
Best and Marcus add to these concepts a category of surface reading that is perceived as criticism that is actually within the text itself. According to this category of surface reading, the interpreter’s contribution to an interpretation of the text is not necessary, as the literary work already contains its own interpretation.
The first subtype of this category of surface reading is a practice of critical description. This practice refers to the fact that the text reveals its own truth and that the critic does not need any sort of metalanguage or metanarrative to give meaning to the text. The critic will not need to find significations beyond or outside the text, as significations are actually within or continuous with the surface (Best & Marcus, 2009, p.11).
The second subtype is a surface reading through which the interpreter finds patterns that exist within and across texts. This subtype involves fields such as thematic criticism, genre criticism, and discourse analysis. The surface reader, unlike the symptomatic reader who traces the ideological frame of the text and connects it to external forces, locates frames and narrative structures within the text. The critic will further decompose and rearrange them to reach their
meaning. Best and Marcus illustrate here Marcus Angenot who links literary surfaces and social discourses which reflect the global outlook of a certain time and place (2009, pp. 11-12). This notion can also be connected to Foucault and Lyotard who, as I have previously underlined, openly perceived in social discourses and language games respectively methods through which people or institutions acted out or exerted influence (Harvey, 1990, pp. 45-47). Likewise, Best and Marcus remind as well in the conclusion of the section of Foucault, who speaks of identifying the power relations at the surface of the discourse (Foucault, 1961-1984).
The final subtype is surface as literal meaning, which speaks of reading the text without making it more complicated. There is no meaning in the absences, no meaning in the affirmation or the negation. Best and Marcus exemplify here the predilection of various readers to read homosexuality into particular circumstances of a story. They cite Benjamin Kahan who declares that the interpreter should take the celibacy in a text as the actual refraining from sex, and not as repressed homosexuality. The principal idea behind all of this is that the interpreter should just let the elements of the text - acts, personas, histories - express what they actually express, instead of trying to fruitlessly go beyond the manifestation of their expression (Best & Marcus, 2009, p.13).
In a final account, Best and Marcus speak of finding the liberation from ideologies and the world they work in. “To begin to challenge the state of things, or the distortions of ideology, we must strive to produce undistorted, complete descriptions of them” (2009, p.18). Within this idea, they highlight the attention that we need to pay to the evident expressions of the literary text. In spite of this, they claim that none of the two methods – symptomatic reading or surface reading – is the ultimate model through which the interpreter can represent reality. Both of these interpretative methods are still valid and practised in various forms within the world of literary interpretation.
1.4. The motives behind the basic methods of hermeneutics
In the following subchapter, I present a description of three prime motives that govern hermeneutics of suspicion, symptomatic reading and surface reading. It is perhaps sensible to mention that I have grouped the motives behind hermeneutics of suspicion and those behind symptomatic reading, due to the similarities between these two types of interpretation. Furthermore, I separately describe the motives behind surface reading, because of a greater discrepancy between this type of interpretation and the former two.
1.4.1. The motive of pleasure. William Roche asserts that, through literature, the reader
has intense experiences and pleasures, allowing for a solitary existence to be expanded (Bloom, 1994, p. 484; Roche, 2004, p. 250). Through reading, we are able to disengage from society, to gain a solitary identity, within which we are focused on ourselves (Bloom, 1994, p. 10; Roche, 2004, p. 250). Moreover, the pleasures which are experienced are not only connected to self and personhood, but also extend to a self-transcendence, the discoveries that we can make beyond our experiences and feelings, reaching different worldviews from other times and cultures (Roche, 2004, pp. 256-257).
These pleasures similarly emerge in the instance in which the reader manages to apprehend a plot, a character, or a text in ways that are different from the ones which are laid down on the paper. As Rita Felski contends in “Suspicious Minds” (2011), the pleasures “include the aesthetic and ethical satisfactions of fashioning detective-fiction-style plots” (p. 215). From here, the motive of pleasure is revealed to be one of the greatest motives that the entire ample concept of hermeneutics of suspicion stands on. Hermeneutics of suspicion discloses that readers interpret with the purpose of finding deeper meanings of what is exposed, of unveiling other significations that are presumably beneath a surface, in order to create “new constellations of meaning” (Felski, 2011, p. 228). To discover these constellations of meaning
is to plunge into satisfactions, which are generated within the multiple levels of the act of interpretation: inspiration, creativity, and belief, these elements harmoniously blending to lead to a fulfilling result. For the interpreter, the act of interpretation is enticing and captivating, a play between the text and oneself, through which the interpreter is challenged both artistically and intellectually (Felski, 2011, pp. 228-229). Felski further stresses the game-like quality of interpretation:
The critic competes against an imagined textual opponent, engages in determinate and precise calculations of strategy, adopts a specific role that comes equipped with certain requirements. This game-like quality of interpretation does not necessarily void or negate other dimensions of reading, but it often proves especially prominent in an academic context, where scholars are rewarded for ingenious forms of puzzle-making and puzzle-solving (2011, p. 229). In this paragraph, Felski maintains that play contributes to an end, although the most powerful thought is that the play is essentially an end in itself. The pleasures that the interpreter gets from cherishing the beauty of content and form, from exercises of the mind, or from discovering aspects of oneself into the text bestow a sense of the importance of what is performed for its own sake. Experiencing pleasure through interpretation is an act which contributes to a particular sort of focus and happiness that determines us to further find some value in our existence, our pursuits and our preferences. This act embarks us on a journey that is both rational and riveting, that is different from other more rigid erudite domains. The pleasures that we experience would, in effect, heighten our predilection and passion for a meaningful activity.
Similarly, Felski particularly mentions the perspective of Anna Maria Jones (2007), who gives an alternative name to hermeneutics of suspicion: hermeneutics of sensation. Alongside the intellectual pleasure, there is an emotional pleasure. According to Jones, interpretation is a storyline in itself which invokes suspense, a storyline that is followed by the gratification of revelation and explanation (Felski, 2011, p. 230).
Alongside the hermeneutics of suspicion, the newer branch of symptomatic reading also pertains to the motive of pleasure, albeit at a more detailed level: symptomatic reading is performed in connection with a symptom. Similarly to a digger, the symptomatic reader will bring out from in between the layers of the text the most important pieces of information about the text, information that would involve nefarious secrets (Best & Marcus, 2009, p. 5). Furthermore, the symptomatic reader, while experiencing pleasure, additionally holds another motive: that of morality. The symptomatic reader will not only bring the information out because of the pleasure of searching and finding, but because he needs to find a deviant aspect that the text withholds. This aspect will eventually bring out a symptom within the interpreter, a symptom that the interpreter might contribute with to a moral cause in some situations.
1.4.2. The motive of morality. People have interpreted for centuries in order to grasp
positive or negative moral values within a text and consequently use those values either for beneficial purposes or damaging justifications. As Nicolae Râmbu in “The Barbarism of Interpretation” (2008) argues, the interpretations of various texts in the latest centuries, particularly those of the Holy Book, have led to authority figures, scholars and preachers to settle various grounds of moral and ethical rules that have issued different consequences, both positive and negative, particularly at large political and social scales.
William Roche sustains in Why Literature Matters in the 21st century (2004) that the
work of art does not necessarily have to be accurate to the world, but must contain a higher moral essence. Interpretation is or should be thus realized with the impetus of exploring moral values that have been neglected by the society at large, values such as acceptance, courage, and humility in literature that would otherwise be ignored (p. 257). I have also observed a categorization of moral themes: when interpreting literature, lessons “of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, tales of faith, hope, and charity as well as narratives that depict pride,
envy, anger, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust” can be acquired (Roche, 2004, p. 21). Finding these moral aspects through interpretation will promote an understanding, an appreciation, and even an acceptance of divergent frames of reference, identities, and clashing worlds. Alternately, through interpreting a work of literature and unveiling a negative image of reality that is represented within it, the interpreter would be able to see the deficiencies of the surrounding world and would recognize what more appropriate moral standards are. Roche underscores this idea in his work:
Not only the medieval Dante shows us the horrors of vice and the harmony of virtue. Virtually every substantial work of literature engages moral questions, and through these encounters with fictional characters we gain a subtler sense of virtue and vice (2004, p. 21).
Based on this last quote, I can argue that the symptomatic interpreter particularly holds the motive of morality, through the second symptom of symptomatic reading: the multiculturalist symptom. The liberalist movements from the latest decades have led the interpreters to reinforce the multiculturalist symptom, which refers to variety of sentiments that the interpreter develops in connection to the literary work. These sentiments can be liberation, forgiveness, or retribution. The literary creation, which might contain hidden negative social forces, would determine the interpreter to develop a sentiment about it. This sentiment will perhaps eventually contribute to a moral or ethical purpose. As Felski in “Critique and The Hermeneutics of Suspicion” (2012) underlines, interpretation is not just a “form of knowledge but a call to action” (p. 2). Through this idea, Felski underscores the power of moral values that might be concealed within the text, a power which will consequently have an impact not only at an individual, but also at a social level.
1.4.3. The motive of rationality. Roche maintains that the interpreter, unlike the author
of a work of literature, has the need to reflect on the rational dimensions of art. The author produces his creation out of subconscious impulses and reflexes. The interpreter, on the other
side, while not neglecting the senses of the creation, still focuses on the rationality of it. This rationality is vital to the interpreter, and he interprets the literary work with the purpose of transforming the work into a means that would lead to an end. This end is an interpretation that has a value, a significance to the world. Nevertheless, the act of interpretation is not only performed in order to reach a final product, but is also an exercise that seeks to combine the abilities of reason and imagination. Furthermore, within a mix of rationale and inventiveness, the critic will interpret in order to discover more methods and principles of interpretation that could arise while interpreting. In this way, the interpreter could add the new discoveries to the already existing questions with which we approach literary works (Roche, 2004, pp. 255-256). In connection to this idea, Felski notices that the incentive of the professional interpreter to gain academic authority and more firmly uphold their professional profile is also strongly involved with their act of interpretation. This case is particularly valid for hermeneutics of suspicion and symptomatic reading: such manners of literary interpretation can only be accomplished by an erudite reader or theorist, having the knowledge to break the illusions of the unprofessional reader (2011, p. 218). Moreover, maintaining a professional identity implies a detachment, through which the critic rises above other adherences, such as personal or political. Through this detachment that comes along with the process of professional interpretation, the critic would perfect the norms and operations from within particular categories of knowledge (Felski, 2011, p. 220).
The motive of rationality is heavily present in interpreters that resort to practices like hermeneutics of suspicion and symptomatic reading, as these types of literary interpretation unearth the threads that connect the elements and the layers of the text. The suspicious interpreter, while having the pleasure of solving an impermissible puzzle, will contribute to bringing out new and unexpected intellectual tenets that will be analysed and employed by future academicians. The symptomatic critic, in a similar manner, will detect crucial
information, both through the Marxist symptom, the first symptom that brands this type of reading, with which the interpreter hunts out historical traces that hide within the material of the text, and through the multiculturalist symptom, with which the interpreter finds social agents in the literary text, agents that would be analysed and that would contribute to further movements. As Felski contends, “in both criticism and crime fiction, the interpretation and piecing together of clues creates knowledge in the present via the reconstruction of the past” (2011, p. 225). Through this idea, Felski emphasizes the importance of fields of knowledge being fortified and even coming into existence by means of literary interpretation.
1.4.4. The motives behind surface reading. One of the most essential remarks
regarding surface reading belongs once again to Rita Felski, who speaks of the potential banality that the classical hermeneutics of suspicion presupposes. Its representation as an unconventional and exhilarating process of interpretation is starting to wear out, as critics have resorted to it too often in the past decades. The hermeneutics of suspicion does not entice and does not enkindle surprise anymore (2011, pp. 231-232).
Which is why, from the surface-depth manner of interpretation, the latter interpreters have recognized the feasibility of surface reading, which the interpreter employs more leisurely. Through surface reading, the reader just takes the text simply as it is, without making it more complicated, particularly because the practical, technological era in which we live now has everything exposed. There is no secret to dig in for anymore, there is no particular taboo that shocks the world. Beneath the exterior, there is more exterior, and everything is openly created and recreated in connection to prior works. Best and Marcus acknowledge that one of the motives for which we do not read beyond the surface anymore is that the horror of the present times is blatantly “displayed as to make ideological critique redundant” (Kay, 2012, p. 459). In this idea, Best and Marcus realize that the main motives behind surface reading are comfort,
and most of all, practicability: not only the suspicious and symptomatic types of interpretation would lead the interpreter into an anxious and tangled web of meanings, but these meanings would also complicate an existence in which everything needs to be swift and direct. The surface interpreter will find exactly what he or she needs in the surface of the text, without wasting time on supplementary ideas in a hasty era.
Does one, henceforth, separate the previous motives from surface reading? In “Surface Reading and the Symptom That Is Only Skin-deep” (2012), Sarah Kay comprises a summary of opinions in regards to surface interpretation: overall, surface interpretation is something that radically deviates from hermeneutics of suspicion and symptomatic reading. Based on the summary of opinions that belong to other critics, Kay writes that surface reading is not a close reading anymore, but a distant one. That it is not critical anymore, but uncritical.
Nevertheless, Kay herself does not completely separate surface reading from symptomatic reading. In fact, she says that, for each literary work, methods of both types of reading can be combined. She compares surface with skin, in which the skin is a symptom, “a surface to be read from, on and with” (2012, p. 456). Kay means here that surface, much like skin, reveals information that might surprise us. Surface is not a completely innocent realm, as it can also contain the marks of deceit, time, and suffering. Surface reading therefore can also bring out a sense of pleasure, the pleasure of observing and discovering right at the surface of the text. This pleasure is both affective and intellectual, as the surfaces that bloom one after another clearly display the meanings of the text in all of its glory. Another form of pleasure in connection to surface materializes when the interpreter contemplates the manner in which the author has composed his creation. It is a pleasure of the aesthetic, as the interpreter is not only fascinated by the content but also by the way in which this content is defined and shaped (Roche, 2004, p. 20).
I would be tempted to believe that surface interpretation for a literary work is not usually performed with a motive of morality or rationality, and that this type of reading cannot lead to a moral cause or an intellectual ends. This is not exactly the case, as surface interpretation can very easily offer information that would inevitably come to be part of other objectives. As I have presented in the subchapter on surface reading, the interpreter can detect at the surface of the text language patterns and discourses that lead to other types of knowledge (Harvey, 1990, pp. 45-47). As Kay concludes “the skin has always been a site where history hurts or heals, its symptoms affecting as much as responding to touch and gaze, and its surface troubling readers’ categories more than it affirms their mastery” (2012, p. 459). This quote buttresses a quality of surface reading, a quality which determines the interpreter to resort to it in order to feel, find and learn.
II. Levels of hermeneutics: the motives behind interpretation in connection to the aesthetic, the theory and identity
Suspicious interpretation, symptomatic reading and surface reading have opened ways for interpreters that sought to read old texts from different and even surprising perspectives: feminists, queer theorists, postcolonial critics and more, the connection between older literature and these recent interpreters being characterized as unstable and agitated (Felski, 2011). From this thought, I understand that the languages of interpretation are further associated with different positions that interpreters take towards the interpreted object: the literary creation is seemingly tackled at three grand levels of the aesthetic, the theory, and identity. Having historicized the basic methods of interpretation and the general motives for which these methods are employed, I will now create a chronological description of three major levels of interpretation from the previous century and explore in detail more motives that are possibly tied to these levels.
2.1. Aesthetic interpretation
Aesthetic interpretation can be associated with major currents of interpretation such as New Criticism or Formalism, which formed at the beginning of the twentieth century. These currents place accent on the structure of the literary work, and on how the elements of the text connect to each other as well as to the text (Smith, 2014). Both of these currents seek to separate literary texts from theoretical frameworks. Nevertheless, I will not discuss these major critical currents, but the motives for which readers who are influenced by the style of these currents interpret for.
As I have mentioned, the level of aesthetic interpretation deals with the form of the literary work, or the aesthetic. What is the notion of aesthetic? In literature, the aesthetic refers
to what Roche calls the “sensuous dimension of literature” (2004, p. 23). The reader experiences the sensuous dimension of the literary work in the first moments in which he contemplates the work. This reading is not tainted by external knowledge. Similarly, an aesthetic interpretation would focus mostly on the beauty of the cover. As Roche underscores, “an insightful work that has no sensuous dimension fails to be beautiful, and a sensuously attractive work that has no substantive ideational moment also fails to satisfy the conditions of beauty” (2004, p. 30). Through this idea, I encounter a first motive behind aesthetic interpretation: the motive of language being the material that the literary creation is forged of, something that the interpreter is not able to disregard in the process of interpretation. Language can further multiply the sensations and pleasures that the literary work offers: either through a more difficult and complex language that might require higher effort to be decrypted in order to arrive at the quintessence of the work, or through a more simple and effortless language that can satisfyingly reveal the meanings of the text. I can argue that, in some cases, the former type of language would add to the pleasures experienced in a suspicious or symptomatic exercise, while the latter would be correspondent to the pleasures elicited in a straightforward surface examination. It is a motive of enjoyment through which the interpreter cherishes the aesthetic and exercises their artistic capabilities while performing an interpretation of the aesthetic. Roche further adds to this motive:
We can also view art from the perspective of form. One perspective recognizes in art the execution of traditional forms; another sees in art the mockery of traditional forms; a third discerns in art the creation of new forms by virtue of the act of thinking through the inadequacies of previous forms (2004, p. 36).
From this remark, I comprehend that the manner in which the language and the form of a literary work are exhibited can guide the interpreter towards new and different appreciations for new kinds of artistic expression.
Secondly, the motive for the reader interpreting aesthetically can sometimes not only be the act of revelling in the beauty and intricateness of the language, but also in where the
language might guide the interpreter to. The aesthetic can describe motifs, themes, and ideas about the literary text as much as the content itself; the candid depiction of a natural setting, the physical characteristics of a character, the language that is used in dialogues and plots, all of these elements can be interpreted by the reader with an incentive to get a better grasp of the literary work at hand. This last thought fortifies the value of both the content and the form of the literary work and the essentiality of their interdependence.
This interrelation between content and form, Roche highlights, is a necessary condition for a work of literature. The language always has something to offer, and skipping it in the act of interpretation would only result in a deficiency of the final result. These last lines would lead to a second motive of rationality: the language is a participant that steers the interpreter closer to or further from the heart of the text’s puzzle. Some concepts regarding surface reading that I have previously assessed involve this motive, as categories of surface interpretation place importance on the linguistic elements that take part in the overall discourse of the literary work, and on what these linguistic elements might refer to, in connection to the content of the work (Best & Marcus 2009). As further examples for this motive, Roche brings the theatre of Bertolt Brecht to the front, a manifestation of art in which the separation between content and form might be pointed at, if not for the ingenious mastery of the artwork to which this apparent separation contributes; or as Roche contends, “this disrupture serves, on a metalevel, the poem’s theme of unconnectedness and alienation” (2004, p. 30). This observation highlights the fact that the detached language of the poem leads to the core of the poem itself. In The Beginnings
of Poetry (1901), Francis B. Gummere is specifically interested in the elements that build a
poem. He considers that interpreting the content of a ballad cannot lead to the crucial origins of the literary work, yet interpreting its component parts, such as improvisation, singing, or dancing, can (Moore, 2013). In La Critique scientifique (1888) (The Scientific Critique), Emile Hennequin considers that the most important motive for aesthetic interpretation is not the
beauty and the emotion that it confers, but the moral and intellectual features of the author that it can guide the interpreter to. In his vision, it is about achieving a purpose of “the complete knowledge of a mind through its artefacts” (Moore, 2013, p. 579). With these ideas in mind, I realize that the aesthetic of the form can escort the interpreter to diverse insights regarding the literary work, as well as to the circumstances in which the literary work has been assembled. Moreover, M.A.R. Habib describes in “Hegel’s aesthetics and their influence” (2013) the ways through which each poetry genre expresses itself:
Epic poetry depicts actions and events objectively and in their wholeness; the lyric expresses not the object but the subject’s inner world of thought and feeling; drama combines these two modes, offering an objective account of the development of an action and also its origin in the hearts of individuals (p. 263).
This quote highlights the idea of the form not only being a cover, but also a part of the soul of the literary work itself. Moreover, I also need to place a stress on the actual language: whether a work is originally composed in English, German, French, Russian, or other language of the world. Translations would naturally occur, but some of the aesthetics of the original language (such as descriptions containing specific figures of speech or choices of words) would still be maintained into the translation in some situations, which would further guide the interpreter to more information about the context in which the respective literary work has been concocted as well as about the world that the literary work depicts. Overall, language is indubitably an essential part of the literary work, which is why the interpreter will touch upon it in order to feel its workings on both an affective and intellectual level. Nevertheless, I am inclined to ask myself: what about a moral incentive? Can the act of interpreting the form of a literary work be accomplished due to a motive of morality?
Naturally, the interpreter can possess the motive of morality when interpreting the aesthetic of a text. This motive can consequently lead the interpreter towards acting out in a certain direction. I remind of the language games and ideological discourses that were Lyotard’s
and Foucault’s centres of attention respectively, discourses which led Foucault in particular to lead a resistance against institutional power and repression through his activity with ostracized identities (Harvey, 1990, p. 46). Alternatively, various religious individuals make use of particular types of language choice in order to support their biases. This act would be connected to the motive of what the interpreter believes to be moral, but also to a motive of desire that I will expand upon later. As an example, I can speak of Dancea’s article entitled “What does the Bible say about homosexuality: God does not condemn it more than the other sins” (2016), in which he explains the fact that homosexuality is clearly condemned in certain quotes of the Bible, in order to promote a mentality that is discriminating an identity. On the other side, the article “What does the Bible say about homosexuality?” (2018) sees the same quotes in a different light and focuses on the ambiguity of the language and on the fact that the respective passages condone a sexual activity which is committed outside of marriage, irrespective of whether that sexual activity is heterosexual or homosexual. Another example of aesthetic interpretation that can involve a motive of morality involves narratives such as the one that is displayed in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955). In this novel, the manifestation of the language is explicitly poetic and spellbinding and would, in an initial phase, seduce the reader into alleviating the judgement that he or she places on the narrator that is capable of using such charming language. However, the interpreter who possesses a motive of morals will both appreciate the language and make a distinction between the exhibition of such an aesthetic and the immorality and depravation that this aesthetic embraces.
2.2. Theoretical interpretation
Theoretical interpretation is performed mostly within the confines of particular theories or concepts: areas of discipline, political, philosophical or religious principles, different
