SEXUATED TOPOLOGY AND THE
SUSPENSION OF MEANING
A NON-HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGICAL
APPROACH TO TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
WILLIAM J. URBAN
PART I
THE HISTORICAL STRUGGLE WITH MEANING:
FROM THE ONE TO THE OTHER
The introduction should neither restrict itself to following the historical development of hermeneutics, nor should it ignore that development and try to draft a contemporary hermeneutics ex nihilo... Thus, the path which recommends itself is a combination of the historical and systematic methods.2
As the topic of meaning is closely associated with the field of hermeneutics, Peter Szondi's words would not be too damaged if 'hermeneutics' were replaced with 'the theory of meaning.' This citation could then initially serve as the guiding principle of Part I which endeavors to follow the historical trajectory of our understanding of meaning but in a systematic manner. Accordingly, the present study first turns to the long established tradition of hermeneutical theory which, especially when combined with the newer field of phenomenology, expressly advises the scholar interested in meaning to examine historical forms of thought. But as this historical exploration encounters structuralist thinking, it finds there its own advice being somewhat countermanded, for the signifying mechanisms of language are said to be at least equal in importance to the hermeneutical phenomenological presupposition that meaning be accounted for by attending to historical context. However, an irreversible turn comes when this trajectory additionally passes through contemporary aesthetic theory and especially through psychoanalysis, for it finds in these fields forms of thought contemplating the (im)possibility of drafting a theory of meaning ex nihilo. So while the present study in a first move does follow Szondi's recommendation to combine historical understanding with systematic methodologies in its effort to survey historical theories of meaning, it finds that the path of this trajectory ends up at the very point excluded from his advised course of action. The non-hermeneutical phenomenological project undertaken in Part II endeavors to position itself precisely within this excluded space to more forcefully express how the endpoint arrived at in Part I paradoxically is both produced by and the causal force of this trajectory.
The theories of meaning of roughly five dozen distinct theorists are assessed in Part I. In most instances only a single representative text has been selected but in some cases two or more by the same author appear, making the total number of texts 'officially' reviewed somewhat larger. As well other scholars and their work are utilized and commented upon throughout the discussion. While the aim has been to be as comprehensive as possible, this is largely to provide suitable context for those areas chosen for a more focused analysis. There has also been an effort made to select texts which refer back to previous texts examined so as to better converge the threads of the review around these concentration points. While each chapter is already introduced separately and includes frequent breaks from the analysis to (re)assess the investigation as it proceeds, for convenience a schematic breakdown of each chapter by section listing the major theorists covered is as follows.
An initial chapter on hermeneutics is the most obvious place to begin a discussion of historical theories of meaning. While this term designates all significant works in textual exegesis from before the Reformation up to the close of the 19th century as well as many works of the 20th century, its constant retheorization of textual approaches is already symptomatic of the fact that something about meaning does not sit right. Section 1.1 begins with the newly emerging exegetical strategies of Renaissance thought to eventually pause with Johann Martin Chladenius before taking up Friedrich Ast, who first articulates the hermeneutical circle. Section 1.2 opens with a discussion of Friedrich Schleiermacher's influential general hermeneutical model, then Wilhelm von Humbolt, Johann Gustav Droysen, Philip August Boeckh as well as Friedrich Nietzsche's prophetic work are examined, to conclude with Wilhelm Dilthey's triadic hermeneutical formula. Section 1.3 identifies the major players and dissenters of hermeneutical phenomenology beginning with the Protestant thought of Rudolf Bultmann and Gerhard Ebeling, to then center the work of Emilio Betti, E. D. Hirsch Jr., Karl-Otto Apel, Jürgen Habermas, Richard E. Palmer, Paul Ricoeur, Manfred Frank, Jean-Luc Nancy and Demetrius Teigas around various issues brought to light by Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method, particularly those involving questions of methodology.
Chapter 2 investigates the field of phenomenology, which, along with structuralism and psychoanalysis, was given birth in the first decade of the 20th century. While it generally proves a challenge to hermeneutics by re-conceptualizing the very objective status of meaning itself, its greatest influence is undeniably felt after Martin Heidegger crosses these two fields in Being and Time. Section 2.1 first discusses Gottlob Frege before examining the founding texts of Edmund Husserl's original epistemological phenomenology and Heidegger's ontological version, which announced to the world that hermeneutical phenomenology had arrived. Section 2.2 takes up the diverse works of Maurice Merleau- Ponty, Gaston Bachelard and Jean-Paul Sartre who are nevertheless united by sharing a Heideggerian concern for that which stands prior to the subject-object divide. Section 2.3 examines those men, who remain faithful to Husserlian methodology beginning with Roman Ingarden's phenomenology of reading which influences both Wolfgang Iser and Hans Robert Jauss, and then turns to Georges Poulet of the Geneva School of phenomenological criticism to conclude with Ricoeur.
Chapter 3 treats early structuralist thought as well as later post-structuralist developments as posing a significant challenge to previously unquestioned presuppositions regarding meaning. In general the (post)structuralist field turns to consider the meaningless mechanical operations of linguistic systems as forming a limit to the hermeneutical pursuit of meaning, for these operations are felt to generate the phenomenal meaning-effect. The work carried out in this field thus raises the possibility that meaning has a cause. Section 3.1 quite properly begins by discussing Ferdinand de Saussure to then turn to the structuralist work of Roman Jakobson and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Section 3.2 first articulates Jacques Derrida's deconstructive logic before turning to the post-structuralism of Michel Foucault and the work in intellectual history conducted by Dominick LaCapra and Hayden V. White.
Chapter 4 views contemporary aesthetic theory as having further broken away from a primary consideration for meaning than the break accomplished by (post)structuralism. It does so by opening up the domains of sense and nonsense as those which constitute the radical limit of meaning and it generally seeks to articulate their paradoxical logic through a descriptive phenomenological methodology. Section 4.1 takes up the diverse thought of Walter Benjamin, Jean Baudrillard and Alain Badiou in their efforts to delimit the spheres of truth and creativity in scripture and poetry over against meaning. Section 4.2 argues that the aesthetic work of Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Rancière, Gilles Deleuze and Nancy can fruitfully be examined with respect to the aesthetics of Immanuel Kant. Finishing the discussion with G. W. F. Hegel, the conclusion that a sublime object suspends the semantic field in the world of art broadly aligns itself with the overall project of the present study.
Chapter 5 considers psychoanalysis an embodiment of the entire path forged by the four previous chapters. Psychoanalysis is thus a privileged field as it can be read as hermeneutical phenomenological or as (post)structuralist. But at its most radical it also reveals a non-hermeneutical phenomenological dimension. This third level makes theoretically explicit the implicit conclusions of aesthetic theory and more rigorously articulates the production of meaning by identifying its cause as closely linked to the core of subjectivity. The cause of meaning and subjectivity is precisely the nihilo from which a nonhermeneutical phenomenological approach to meaning could spring, which is the subject of Part II. Section 5.1 first highlights Sigmund Freud's achievement in re-conceptualizing interpretation and then faults both C. G. Jung and Ernst Kris for failing to recognize his multi-leveled methodological approach. Section 5.2 reviews the critical work of Ricoeur, Frank and Julia Kristeva to find similar failures. Section 5.3 rigorously stresses the same triadic levels found in Lacan's seminars and papers to which his adherents Jacques-Alain Miller, Roberto Harari, Monique David-Ménard, Paul Verhaeghe, Bruce Fink, Slavoj Žižek and Alenka Zupančič have variously put into play in their own work.
If an introduction is itself a hermeneutical exercise that establishes the horizon of the whole before the parts are analyzed, the same could be said of titles which similarly establish the space within which the text moves. This implies that a title may not be understandable until sometime after the content of the text it signifies has been reviewed. And sometimes not even then. Such is the present case where 'The Historical Struggle with Meaning' is readily understandable but its subtitle 'From the One to the Other' is not, as the reader must first work through Part II before its meaning can be retroactively established.
Book based on this dissertation
FREE Lacanian-themed puzzles
