HERMENEUTICS

MEANING OF HERMENEUTICS

Human search for truth and knowledge is an unending enterprise. There are different ways of knowing and arriving at truth. Irrespective of the source and medium through which knowledge has come about, truth being arrived at, it is an undeniable fact that human experience and its analysis do point us in some direction. Since knowledge is mediated, it is in some way an interpretation. There is always a background in which perception takes place.

The knowledge and truth are not an exception to these phenomena. Thus, epistemological enterprise extends to those levels of analysis where we interpret while knowing. Thus, hermeneutics becomes the understanding of the complex conditioning of human knowledge. The hermeneutical tendency is not limited to any one continent or nation or language stream. It is found in all peoples. In fact, it is one of the ways through which knowledge grows.

Elements of Hermeneutics:

According to Crotty, the origin of hermeneutics in its modern day use dates back to the 17th century, where it gained importance in the context of biblical studies. Hermeneutics provide guidelines for interpreting scriptures. Since the 17th century, hermeneutics has moved into many areas of scholarship and been applied to text other than scriptures, including unwritten sources.

The meaning and scope of the term “hermeneutics” is an important consideration in a research study that concerns itself with interpretation. Etymologically the roots of the word hermeneutics lie in the Greek verb hermeneuein, which is generally translated as “interpret” or “understand.”

Six different elements of hermeneutics emerged during modern times, each representing a standpoint on the act of interpretation. Although each element brings to the forefront legitimate but different influences on the act of interpretation, there are particular hermeneutic elements that suit the unique beliefs, philosophies and practices of the interpretive inquirer. The two elements that offer the greatest meaning in the context of this particular hermeneutic inquiry are the phenomenology of existential understanding and interpretive procedures.

The Capacity of the Text

The text in the strict sense of hermeneutics, is one of the key elements. Text generally understood as that stretch of written language which has a beginning and end. In a metaphorical sense text can be extended even to include messages generated by sign-systems of various religious, economic, social etc.

The Capacity of the Reader / Interpreter

Like the text, the reader too has an impact on the text: being influenced by the text and influencing the text. Every reader brings a horizon of expectation to the text. Horizon of expectation is a mind-set, or system of references, which characterizes the reader’s finite viewpoint amidst his or her situations in time and history.

The Capacity of the Author

The author cannot be ignored in the hermeneutics. It is his worldview that unconsciously comes into the text and affects the text. An author cannot dispatch himself fully from his historical condition. He feeds both the actual meaning and intended meaning into the text. However, the text has traces of his worldview and his times, which can be traced through hermeneutics.

Conclusion

The primary concern of hermeneutics is the philosophy of understanding. Interpretive hermeneutic understanding differs from other ways of understanding by presupposing that all texts and non-texts are strange and inaccessible - and, as such, distanced from the interpreter. But a paradox exists: for, despite the sense of strangeness and distance between the interpreter and the individual and/or text, there is an assumed link or commonality between the two, making the event of understanding feasible.

Hermeneutics differs from Positivism

Introduction

Positivism and hermeneutics are theories and philosophical frameworks for creating and understanding science. Modern social science started during the 1800s, and the question raised was whether the social science study should be built based on the existing scientific model or on a different model. Let’s explore how hermeneutics differs from positivism.

Positivism: Drawing from the works of Auguste Comte, the positivist perspective in the natural sciences emphasizes the application of the scientific method to understand and explain observable phenomena. It assumes that the social world operates under universal laws that can be discovered through empirical observation and measurement.

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutic philosophy, influenced by thinkers like Wilhelm Dilthey and Hans-Georg Gadamer, challenges the positivist approach in the social sciences. It argues that human experiences and meanings are context-dependent, emphasizing the importance of interpreting and understanding social phenomena' subjective meanings.

Natural science versus social sciences

Positivism: Positivism, the most prominent and dominating ideology during the 1900s, inherited its name from the theories of Auguste Comte and builds on the assumption that even the social science study should be based on the general natural scientific models to develop its theory and understanding of the concept.

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics, rooted in the interpretation of text, was initially considered anti-positivist until the early 1900s. This theoretical framework challenges the idea that social science studies can be adequately conducted using the same models as natural sciences. Hermeneutics asserts that sociological inquiries must go beyond quantitative methods and incorporate symbolic values, emphasizing qualitative aspects. Unlike positivism, which seeks universal “truths,” hermeneutics contends that truth is relative, varying across individuals, cultures, and historical contexts. Consequently, hermeneutics rejects a standardized research model, highlighting the importance of interpreting everything within its unique context.

Objectivity and Subjectivity in Social Sciences:

Objectivity (Positivism): Positivism strives for objectivity by minimizing the influence of the researcher’s subjectivity. It emphasizes detachment, neutrality, and the use of standardized instruments to ensure replicability and reliability of findings.

Subjectivity (Hermeneutics): Hermeneutics acknowledges the subjectivity of the researcher and the research participants. It argues that understanding social phenomena requires recognizing the influence of the researcher’s background, perspectives, and the context of the study.

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions:

Quantitative Research (Positivism): Positivist research often employs quantitative methods, such as surveys and experiments, to collect numerical data. It seeks to identify patterns and relationships that can be generalized across populations.

Qualitative Research (Hermeneutics): Hermeneutic approaches favour qualitative research methods like interviews, observations, and textual analysis. Qualitative methods allow in-depth exploration of meanings, contexts, and subjective experiences.

The key differences emphasise that while positivism emphasizes empirical observation and objectivity, hermeneutics focuses on the interpretive understanding of human experiences, considering the role of subjectivity and context in shaping meaning.

In what way Hermeneutic provide an early critique of positivism?

Hermeneutics provided an early critique of positivism in several ways, the following are –

1. Emphasis on Interpretation: Friedrich Schleiermacher challenged positivism’s reliance on empirical observation alone. He argued that understanding human experiences requires interpretation, considering the cultural and historical context, linguistic nuances, and the subjective aspects of interpretation.

2. Historical and Cultural Context: Wilhelm Dilthey emphasized the importance of historical and cultural context in understanding human phenomena. He argued that reducing social sciences to empirical data neglected the unique qualities of historical and cultural situations.

3. Rejection of Universal Laws: Hans-Georg Gadamer critiqued positivism’s pursuit of universal laws in the social sciences. He argued that human experiences are inherently context-dependent, making the search for universal truths inapplicable and emphasizing the need for interpretation.

4. Subjectivity in Understanding: Martin Heidegger, though not a strict hermeneutic philosopher, influenced hermeneutic thought. He emphasized the role of the interpreter’s subjectivity in understanding, challenging positivism’s quest for pure objectivity in scientific inquiry.

5. Rejecting Quantification as Sole Method: Paul Ricoeur critiqued positivism’s exclusive reliance on quantitative methods. He argued for including qualitative approaches, such as narrative analysis, to capture the richness of meaning inherent in human experiences.

The works of critical thinkers like Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Gadamer, Heidegger, and Ricoeur critiqued positivism by emphasizing the importance of interpretation, historical and cultural context, rejecting the pursuit of universal laws, recognizing subjectivity, and advocating for a broader methodological toolkit in the social sciences.