Poststructuralism and Hermeneutics

This is the first part of my assignment, and I am not satisfied with it at all. I am also not satisfied with this semester (with myself(. Feel like the topics are very difficult and I feel a little bit hopeless... :(

Poststructuralism and Hermeneutics

Poststructuralism and hermeneutics are two lines of thought, each comprised of many different approaches. That is one of the difficulties when writing about them. This paper will first very briefly address the main ideas of each of them and then move towards two important writers, Derrida for poststructuralism and Gadamer for hermeneutics, contrasting and exposing their points of view.

Hermeneutics, permits a range of interpretations, some of which may be seen as being closer to the truth. However, no interpretation is ever final. Hermeneutical understanding never arrives at its object directly; one’s approach is always conditioned by the interpretations explored on the way. Whilst one’s understanding may become “fixed” in an explanation for the time being such fixity is always contingent. In choosing to act as if my explanation is correct, the world may resist my actions in a slightly unexpected way, giving rise to a new understanding, resulting in a revised explanation, providing a new context for acting and so on. This circularity between explanation and understanding, termed the “hermeneutic circle”, is central to hermeneutic method (Brown,1997. p 48).

Hermeneutics is not simple, it is understood differently by different scholars making it contradictory sometimes (Slattery, 1995, p. 104). It is comprised of different directions that emphasize different aspects and explanations of interpretation and understanding and who focus upon different things. It has its roots in the Renaissance with the interpretation of the bible and the classical texts but it had been developed into a philosophical direction in the period of German Romanticism. After that it was not interested only in the interpretation of texts but also interested in the human life and the existence itself. The paper will elaborate this further when we deal with Gadamer's points of view, developed with the influence of Heidegger (the ontological turn of hermeneutics) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005).

For example if we take objectivist hermeneutics which emphasizes that the part of the text can only be understood as part of the whole (objectivist hermeneutic circle) (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009, p. 92). Also by their name it is understood that they thought there was a certain objectivity to the hermeneutics and to their finding of meaning (ibid., 95). While on the one hand the natural sciences can explain their theories by facts, by contrast the social sciences are marked by interpretation (Brown,1997. p 48).

On the other hand there is alethic hermeneutics, which concentrates upon preunderstanding and understanding. What the alethic hermeneutics agree upon with the natural sciences is that both the social sciences and the natural sciences are: “irrevocably marked by interpretation all the way down to the level of data, and by preconceptions in the generation of theory” (ibid., 96). Part of the alethic hermeneutics is the existential hermeneutics developed by Heidegger and continued by his pupil Gadamer, both very influential figures in this field of study.

Poststructutalism is seen as one of the schools within postmodernism, and separating these two is “of limited value” (Alvesson & Skölberg, 2009, p.182). This school of thought began to develop in the 60s and it was most popular in the 80s, with such thinkers as Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida, who didn't refer to themselves as poststructuralists at all (ibid., 182). Foucault was famous for his discourse theory and writings about power and knowledge which marked his thinking. Derrida on the other hand is known for his deconstruction theory which we will be dealing with later in this paper.
As the name itself suggests poststructuralism is a criticism that builds upon structuralism. What they have in common is that both place importance on language, but in different ways. On the one hand structuralism stresses the fact that language has an underlying structure that lies beyond people and with which you can explain and understand cultures (which according to them were structured as language) (Barker, 2008, p. 15). The poststructuralist school of thought doesn't believe that the researchers can say anything objective about reality and that language is embedded in intertextuality, one text refers to another and so it goes on indefinitely, making language metaphorical and difficult to pinpoint in any direction. Poststructuralists and postmodernists offer “the possibility of multiple interpretations” ( Alvesson & Skölberg, 2009, p.183). It is this fact of interpretation that offers us an understanding of poststructuralism based upon hermeneutics “poststructuralist hermeneutics”:
“... all discourses about postmodernism are interpretative and hermeneutic endeavours” (Slattery, 1995, p. 104).

Poststructuralist hermeneutics puts subjectivity in the foreground and undermines objectivity as non-existent in reality, “conceives understanding as an ontological (study of being) rather than an epistemological (study of knowledge) problem” (ibid., p.106). This is also the philosophical hermeneutics that Heidegger was interested in developing, emphasizing that in hermeneutics is interested in studying Being-in-the-World.

That 'reality' can be represented in many different ways is also a central theme, and that the ideal that several voices can be heard is a cherished one. The very idea of a truthful representation and interpretation is problematized and it is claimed that social science cannot in fact reflect 'reality'; in many variants even reality is problematized and human experience is itself discursively constituted, that is, it 'exists' in, rather than outside, language. In more radical variations on these themes, 'reality' is represented with a view to creating credibility and authority for a particular statement ( Alvesson & Skölberg, 2009, p.184).

At first glance it might seem that poststructuralists don't offer anything except for destruction of structuralists' point of view, offering no substitution for it themselves. But their theory of language they offer different ideas of subjectivity than what were known before them. They point out to the fact that we are locked in our subject positions by discourse (Foucault), which determine who has the power and who can speak on the other hand, and who cannot on the other. One of the main points that they make is decentering the subject and concentrating on language and discourse (ibid., 196). This gives the subjects less possibility for agency and in this point poststructuralism has been criticised by many. But on the other hand their point of view seeks to make clear that some dominant ways of talking about social practices (discourse) are not universally true but are only 'dominant modes of thought' (ibid., p.197).