Hermeneutics


 * Definition and Etymology**:

Hermeneutics is concerned with meaning, and this is typically understood as the interpretation of texts or a particular system for such textual interpretations (O.E.D., 2015). A smaller vein of scholarship deals with systems of interpretation such as hermeneutics of faith and suspicion, orientations towards texts that presume either duplicitous mystification or earnest good faith (Hasian, 2013). Hermeneutics is most often associated with theology (Biblical hermeneutics) and philosophy (philosophical hermeneutics), where meaning and textual interpretation are central. The O.E.D (2015) traces this term to post-classical Latin //hermeneuticus// in the late 17th Century, and it has an ancient Greek etymon: ἑρμηνευτικός, meaning of or for interpreting. Notably, the Greek etymon was originally //ἑρμηνευτικὴ τέχνη, //translating roughly as "hermeneutical art" (O.E.D, 2015, n.p.). This etymology is reflected in contemporary use, as evidenced by Ricouer's (2005) definition of hermeneutics as an "art of interpreting texts" (p. 66).

Hermeneutics can be traced through three academic lineages: 1) a discipline dating to Friedrich Schleiermacher's foundational work, 2) the religious writings of early Protestants, and 3) the philosophical hermeneutics of the past fifty years or so, linked to Hans Georg-Gadamer. (Eden, 1997, p. 4). The current status of hermeneutics as a concept has a rough correspondence to this tripartite beginning. Schleiermacher's work contributes to hermeneutics' status as a distinct topic of study in philosophy and has generated a rich set of debates over hermeneutics, interpretation, and meaning. Second, the religious roots are part of hermeneutics in religious studies, where the interpretation of meaning is almost exclusively linked with sacred texts. Finally, given Gadamer’s explicit connection between rhetoric and hermeneutics, the final branch has contributed to a rich and varied body of scholarship on rhetoric and hermeneutics, sometimes glossed as rhetorical hermeneutics (Mailloux, 1991).

Rhetoric has not had a total monopoly on hermeneutics, and other sub-disciplines in communication have engaged with hermeneutics (Pilotta, 1982; Arthos, 2009). However, the richest link is between rhetorical studies and hermeneutics. This entry proceeds by tracing different lines of scholarship that either posit links between rhetoric and hermeneutics or attempt to combine the two in the interpretation of texts.


 * Rhetoric //and// Hermeneutics**

The sheer amount of scholarship on rhetoric and hermeneutics suggests that there are several fruitful connections, and scholars have suggested various links between interpretation and persuasion. While Davis (2005) insists upon the existence of nonhermeneutical rhetoric, most other scholars accept a great deal of overlap based on shared characteristics or reciprocal relationships.

Classical rhetorical texts are typically the site of such shared characteristics, and Eden (1997) forges a link based on the adversarial nature of both interpretation and rhetorical practice in Cicero, Quintilian, and Aristotle. Krajewski (1992) notes that the dialogue associated with rhetoric also defines hermeneutics--where one enters into a conversation with a text (p. 8). Gadamer (1997) links them by finding a hermeneutic tradition in the history of Renaissance rhetoric (in the work of Vico) and contending that both rhetoric and hermeneutics are innate human capacities that individuals cannot be systematically taught.

The most common and well-developed connection between rhetoric and hermeneutics is premised on their complementary functions. As Schleiermacher (1977) contends, “Hermeneutics and rhetoric are intimately related in that every act of understanding is the reverse side of an act of speaking, and one must grasp the thinking that underlies a given statement” (p. 97). Rhetoric and hermeneutics thus form a dialectical pair, where the practice of one entails the practice of the other. Jost and Hyde (1997) explain that "hermeneutics and rhetoric are more intimately related than Schleiermacher believed…the art of understanding, dedicated as it is to advancing the hermeneutic competence of those interested in being part of its scholarly enterprise, must itself employ the practice of rhetoric to disclose clearly and to justify any truth claim regarding the authorial intentions of a given text” (5). Krajewski (1992) clarifies this, noting that any attempt to justify an interpretation cannot rely on syllogistic proofs or absolute truth but must instead appeal to the probable and the common--the rhetorical (p. 12).

Rhetorical scholars have embraced this mutual relationship, focusing on how hermeneutics contribute to rhetorical theory and practice. Hyde and Smith (1979) define rhetoric’s purpose as making meaning known, thus requiring hermeneutics at an ontological level (p. 355). Rickman (1981) similarly makes the connection on the basis of what conditions need to be fulfilled for communication and understanding to be possible (p. 111). Other scholars embrace the relationship for the mutual benefit, where hermeneutics helps provide an epistemic boost to rhetoric (Bineham, 1994). Mailloux (1997) reaffirms the “practical inseparability of interpretation and language use, and thus of the discourses that theorize those practices, hermeneutics and rhetoric” (p. 379). This link has been widely accepted, and any disagreements focus not on whether rhetoric and hermeneutics are linked but rather “which side of the production-reception coin rhetorical studies ought to emphasize” (Davis, 2005, p. 191).


 * Rhetoric //as// Hermeneutics**

Major disputes have revolved around the potential of rhetoric to serve //as// a hermeneutic, guiding interpretation across fields. This tension is particularly prevalent in scholarship dealing with the rhetoric of science. Gross and Keith (1997) summarize the disputes over whether rhetoric can serve as a master hermeneutic, guiding interpretation in Physics and Chemistry as well as History and Communication. Goankar (1990; 1997) argues that rhetoric is incapable of such a hermeneutic status, pointing to its status as a pedagogical and performative art, not an interpretive one. Leff (1997a) and others contest this claim, but the expansive debate revolves around questions of whether rhetoric can be a hermeneutic.

Other attempts to fuse rhetoric and hermeneutics have mainly focused on textual criticism. Mailloux (1991) proposes rhetorical hermeneutics as “attempts to move critical theory from general theories about the interpretive process to rhetorical histories of specific interpretive acts” (p. 238). This recognizes the insights of theorists such as Gadamer, seeing history not as some neutral ground for interpretation but rather a necessary component of any interpretive act. Leff (1997b) reverses this ordering with his idea of hermeneutical rhetoric, but both embrace the potential of rhetoric in analysis and interpretation. Other applications of rhetoric and hermeneutics have taken place on the familiar ground of public address scholarship or argument analysis (Arthos, 2003). Arthos (2002) examines Chapman’s Coatesville Address and contends that it is at the “crossroads of rhetoric and hermeneutics” (p. 193). Similarly, Ray and Richards (2007) locate an enactment of hermeneutics in the legal appeals of Virginia and Francis Minor. Even Branham and Pearce (1985) ponder the application of their proposed contextual reconstructions for texts such as the Gettysburg Address.

include component="comments" page="page:Hermeneutics" limit="10" Arthos, J. (2002). Champan’s Coatesville Address: A hermeneutic reading. //Quarterly Journal of Speech// //88//, 193-208.
 * References:**

Arthos, J. (2003). Where there are no rules of systems to guide us: Argument from example in a hermeneutic rhetoric. //Quarterly Journal of Speech 89//, 320-344.

Arthos, J. (2009). Hermeneutics. In S. A. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.). //Encyclopedia of communication theory// (pp. 470-475). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bineham, J. L. (1994). Displacing Descartes: Philosophical hermeneutics and rhetorical studies. //Philosophy & Rhetoric 27//, 300-312.

Branham, R. J., & Pearce, W. B. (1985). Between text and context: Toward a rhetoric of contextual reconstruction. //Quarterly Journal of Speech// //71//, 19-36.

Davis, D. (2005). Addressing alterity: Rhetoric, hermeneutics, and the nonappropriative relation. //Philosophy & Rhetoric 38//, 191-212.

Eden, K. (1997). //Hermeneutics and the rhetorical tradition: Chapters in the ancient legacy and its humanist reception//. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gadamer, H. (1997). Rhetoric and Hermeneutics. J. Weinsheimer (Trans.). In W. Jost & M. J. Hyde (Eds.). //Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in our time: A reader// (pp. 45-59). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gaonkar, D.P. (1990). Rhetoric and its double: Reflections on the rhetorical turn in the human sciences. In H.W. Simons (Ed.). //The Rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry// (pp. 341-366). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gaonkar, D.P. (1997). The idea of rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. In A.G. Gross & W.M. Keith (Eds.). //Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science// (pp. 25-85). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Gross, A. G. & Keith, W.M. (1997). Introduction. In A.G. Gross & W.M. Keith (Eds.). //Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science// (pp. 1-24). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hasian, M. (2013). Colonial hermeneutics of suspicion, the spectacular rhetorics of the Casement Report, and the British policing of Belgian imperialism, 1904-1908. //Critical Studies in Media Communication 30,// 224-240.

Hyde, M. J,. & Smith, C. R. (1979). Hermeneutics and rhetoric: A seen but unobserved relationship. //Quarterly Journal of Speech 65//, 347-363.

Jost, W., & Hyde, M. J. (1997). Introduction: Rhetoric and hermeneutics: Places along the way. In W. Jost & M.J. Hyde (Eds.). //Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in our time: A reader// (pp. 1-44). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Krajewski, B. (1992). //Traveling with Hermes: Hermeneutics// //and rhetoric//. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Leff, M. (1997a). Hermeneutical rhetoric. In W. Jost & M. J. Hyde (Eds.). //Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in our time: A reader// (pp. 196-214). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Leff, M. (1997b). The idea of rhetoric as interpretive practice: A humanist’s response to Gaonkar. In A.G. Gross & W.M. Keith (Eds.). //Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science// (pp. 89-101). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Mailloux, S. (1991). Rhetorical hermeneutics revisited. //Text and Performance Quarterly 11//, 233-248.

Mailloux, S. (1997). Articulation and understanding: The pragmatic intimacy between rhetoric and hermeneutics. In W. Jost & M. J. Hyde (Eds.). //Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in our time: A reader// (pp. 378-391). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pilotta, J.J. (Ed.). (1982). //Interpersonal communication: Essays in phenomenology and hermeneutics//. Washington D.C.: University Press of America.

Ray, A.G., & Richards, C.K. (2007). Inventing citizens, imagining gender justice: The suffrage rhetoric of Virginia and Francis Minor. //Quarterly Journal of Speech// //93//, 375-402.

Rickman, H.P. (1981). Rhetoric and Hermeneutics. //Philosophy & Rhetoric 14//, 100-111.

Ricoeur, P. (1997). Rhetoric—poetics—hermeneutics. R. Harvey (Trans.). In W. Jost & M. J. Hyde (Eds.). //Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in our time: A reader// (pp. 60-72). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schleiremacher, F., Duke, J. & Forstman, J. (Eds.). (1977). //Hermeneutics: The handwritten manuscripts//. H. Kimmerle. (Trans.). Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.