"Is There a Meaning in This Text?", Chapter 2
Part One is Vanhoozer's exploration of the undoing of the author, the book, and the reader, with chapter 2 focusing on the author.
Most believe that there are texts because authors wrote them. We can interpret what a text means because the signs used (words) reflect reality, or at least reality as the author sees it. Vanhoozer argues, however, that postmodernity "puts into question the notion that signs are reliable indicators of the way things really are (43). This, of course, poses a problem to the author.
Modernity lifts up the individual and their consciousness as the home of meaning. An author writes what she consciously thinks. Once we figure out what the author thinks, we have the (original, authentic, stable) meaning of the text.
Kant began the undoing of this notion, however, by suggesting that the categories in which we interpret reality actually mold what they are interpreting. The categories of thought mold the world they interpret. Derrida takes this one step further by saying that the categories of thought are themselves constructions. This obviously does away with stability: The world is formed by the categories that understand it that are themselves formed. This is then applied to language: Language is not the great mirror of reality, but as much caught in the trap of being formed and forming thought. No one can escape this matrix and so all thought is constructed or interpreted. This is the root of Derrida's critique of "logocentrism," which believes that we talk about reality, not just about talk. This view of language explains why Derrida critiques philosophy's preference for speech: Speech shows the continuity of language with author much more closely than writing.
So, what of Derrida's famous dictum: "There is nothing outside the text"? Only this: "everything is part of a signifying system" (63). In other words, there's no base; it's interpretation all the way down. Words are signs that "play" with one another; they operate in a system of différance, which means defer presence (of something real) and differ from one another. Meaning is created in the system of deferring a real meaning using signs that differ from one another.
But what about dictionaries? Don't dictionaries tell us what word means? Think about words that change meaning. Does "cool" reflect temperature? Mood? Fashion style? Reaction to anger? Which of these goes down to the "real" meaning? Of course, it depends on context and Derrida's point is that context never goes all the way down to something real, but always reflects the interchange of signs/words. So, is the author in control of the words, then? Could it just as easily be the case that the words control the author? If yes, then does the author have "control" over meaning?
Vanhoozer consistently brings this back to theology. If language reflects this indeterminacy, then what of God? If the author is in the control of language, then is God a product, or a projection, as well?
But certainly an author intends something when they write, don't they? If we can grasp what the author intends, isn't that the meaning? This is the position of E.D. Hirsch. This is not to grasp the author's mental intention, but to the effect it seems the text was aimed to have. The text is stabilized by the author, but it is still the text we are focusing on and not the author. The person who wrote meant something by these words that is not destabilized because words differ. While the text is stable, it's applications to new settings are endless.
The response is that the author's intention is still subject to language and systems. The author herself is not stable, but constructed by language and society, and so intention is not stable either. Even if the author intends something really, really badly, they are as confined to language as anyone. This means that the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is insufficient to interpretation.
In light of this discussion, Vanhoozer summarizes four fallacies with regard to authorial intention:
1. Fallacy of Relevancy: the author's intentions are irrelevant for the purpose of a text's interpretation.
2. Fallacy of Transparency: the author's intentions are not transparent but coated with cultural practices and beliefs, coded in this culture's language.
3. Fallacy of Identity: The author's intention and a text's meaning are not one in the same. The text has a "career of its own."
4. Fallacy of Objectivity: We do not stand apart from texts, but in their reading are already at work in interpreting them by our own structures, cultures, and language. We do not stand apart from the text.
So, what does this say about the Bible? Do scholars write commentaries on revelatory texts or on (biblical) texts that are themselves commentaries? The postmodern critic believes that the intention of whatever biblical author is indecipherable and that Jesus cannot be a reliable sign of God. Vanhoozer believes that the author's death spells doom for human agency, proper speech (commentary) about texts, and meaning in texts. (But, as Part 2 asserts, the author can come back to life.)
Most believe that there are texts because authors wrote them. We can interpret what a text means because the signs used (words) reflect reality, or at least reality as the author sees it. Vanhoozer argues, however, that postmodernity "puts into question the notion that signs are reliable indicators of the way things really are (43). This, of course, poses a problem to the author.
Modernity lifts up the individual and their consciousness as the home of meaning. An author writes what she consciously thinks. Once we figure out what the author thinks, we have the (original, authentic, stable) meaning of the text.
Kant began the undoing of this notion, however, by suggesting that the categories in which we interpret reality actually mold what they are interpreting. The categories of thought mold the world they interpret. Derrida takes this one step further by saying that the categories of thought are themselves constructions. This obviously does away with stability: The world is formed by the categories that understand it that are themselves formed. This is then applied to language: Language is not the great mirror of reality, but as much caught in the trap of being formed and forming thought. No one can escape this matrix and so all thought is constructed or interpreted. This is the root of Derrida's critique of "logocentrism," which believes that we talk about reality, not just about talk. This view of language explains why Derrida critiques philosophy's preference for speech: Speech shows the continuity of language with author much more closely than writing.
So, what of Derrida's famous dictum: "There is nothing outside the text"? Only this: "everything is part of a signifying system" (63). In other words, there's no base; it's interpretation all the way down. Words are signs that "play" with one another; they operate in a system of différance, which means defer presence (of something real) and differ from one another. Meaning is created in the system of deferring a real meaning using signs that differ from one another.
But what about dictionaries? Don't dictionaries tell us what word means? Think about words that change meaning. Does "cool" reflect temperature? Mood? Fashion style? Reaction to anger? Which of these goes down to the "real" meaning? Of course, it depends on context and Derrida's point is that context never goes all the way down to something real, but always reflects the interchange of signs/words. So, is the author in control of the words, then? Could it just as easily be the case that the words control the author? If yes, then does the author have "control" over meaning?
Vanhoozer consistently brings this back to theology. If language reflects this indeterminacy, then what of God? If the author is in the control of language, then is God a product, or a projection, as well?
But certainly an author intends something when they write, don't they? If we can grasp what the author intends, isn't that the meaning? This is the position of E.D. Hirsch. This is not to grasp the author's mental intention, but to the effect it seems the text was aimed to have. The text is stabilized by the author, but it is still the text we are focusing on and not the author. The person who wrote meant something by these words that is not destabilized because words differ. While the text is stable, it's applications to new settings are endless.
The response is that the author's intention is still subject to language and systems. The author herself is not stable, but constructed by language and society, and so intention is not stable either. Even if the author intends something really, really badly, they are as confined to language as anyone. This means that the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is insufficient to interpretation.
In light of this discussion, Vanhoozer summarizes four fallacies with regard to authorial intention:
1. Fallacy of Relevancy: the author's intentions are irrelevant for the purpose of a text's interpretation.
2. Fallacy of Transparency: the author's intentions are not transparent but coated with cultural practices and beliefs, coded in this culture's language.
3. Fallacy of Identity: The author's intention and a text's meaning are not one in the same. The text has a "career of its own."
4. Fallacy of Objectivity: We do not stand apart from texts, but in their reading are already at work in interpreting them by our own structures, cultures, and language. We do not stand apart from the text.
So, what does this say about the Bible? Do scholars write commentaries on revelatory texts or on (biblical) texts that are themselves commentaries? The postmodern critic believes that the intention of whatever biblical author is indecipherable and that Jesus cannot be a reliable sign of God. Vanhoozer believes that the author's death spells doom for human agency, proper speech (commentary) about texts, and meaning in texts. (But, as Part 2 asserts, the author can come back to life.)
Labels: hermeneutics, Meaning in this Text, PhD, Vanhoozer
posted by Aaron Perry at
9:38 AM
10 Comments:
This seems to me to be another one of those "there are no absolutes except that there are no absolutes" types of things. If this guy truly believed that "meaning" was more or less unpredictable and uncontrollable then why is he writing a book to explain it. To me the very fact that he is using "signs" to try and communicate a very specific, universal "meaning" to us about how "signs" have no specific, universal "meaning" seems rather absurd.
Hey AJ,
It should be noted that Vanhoozer is summarizing here, and has not stated his position. The work that he summarizes is mainly, though not only, that of Jacques Derrida.
As to whether or not Derrida is right, well, you have to note that I am summarizing a summary of Derrida and that exactly what the text means is already two steps removed. Part of this is Derrida's point. In fact, when you use the word "absolute," you're participating in a particular (philosophical) history of that word.
That being said, I think you have a point: Derrida likely believes there is a proper way to read his work. However, there is room in between these points--no meaning vs. stable and unmoveable meaning that have yet to be explored.
I don't think Derrida works is as nihilistic as "no universal meaning," although some read him like this. Derrida, instead, notes that there is room for "play" with texts and their interpretations.
Ahh - I can buy room for play and i can personally attest to all kinds of room for misunderstanding.
AP--
Are Vanhoozer's fallacies his conclusion? In other words, he thinks the author's intention is transparent and that we do in fact stand objectively apart from texts? I just want to be clear before I comment.
Tim F.
Hey Tim, how are you doing? Nice to hear from you.
These fallacies are developed by Vanhoozer in light of (especially) two literary critics (Wimsatt and Beardsley and their 1946 study) and his own summary of what he calls "undoing the author." As I've written it, the title is the fallacy; the explanation is the belief that undergirds the fallacy.
Vanhoozer believes that any appeal to an author's intention (which he makes and I'll later go over) must avoid these fallacies.
I'm doing well; thanks for asking. Also, thanks for the clarification with regard to Vanhoozer.
From what I can see currently, and perhaps I should just wait, it seems he's trying to completely undo any form of constructionist epistemology when it comes to texts.
I don't think we can do that; we can't just pretend Kant and Hegel never happened or act like they got everything wrong. In fact, I think we can affirm some form of constructionist epistemology and still maintain a robust realism. Human making, both physically and with ideas and categories, is revelatory and part of God's salvific plan, e.g. the ark was quite literally a human construction and instrument of salvation. God's making and human making here are complementary, not exclusive. Milbank is very isntructive on this score with his work on poiesis.
To be sure, I am aware that many constructionists are not realists and should rightly be criticized.
Tim F.
Tim, actually, you are almost writing verbatim what Vanhoozer will eventually argue. He admits that we interpret with specific categories, and even that these categories are constructions--going even further than Kant--but affirms a reality beyond these categories that is not necessarily distorted by these categories. So, he's pretty comfortable with a reformed epistemology here. (That's not until chapter 6, though.)
I think I will get into some stuff on poiesis in my work on atonement. The story that gets worked out in the context of a listener is co-created. But that's a longer discussion.
Btw, where are you in your studies?
AP--
Thanks for the clarification, and I'm glad he's moving in that direction. For what it's worth I prefer Hegel to Kant, but in an attenuated fashion.
As far as my studies, I have completed my classwork and will take my final general exam in 2 weeks. Then, I have my qualifying exam, which I hope to take in the fall, and if I pass I will be abd.
How about you?
Tim F.
Swimming in a general direction with some optimism from people who know more than me. Ha!
I was on break this past year and will start back up in the fall with a different supervisor.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home