Hermeneutics

This paper will seek to take up the dislocation of the other through the sovereign consciousness of the cosmopolitan narrative persona. This textual address of “another other” tracks the ethical process of non-identity, or of self-difference, through a  narrative of encounter and its provisional positionality of the subject. While discussion of this strategy should not be limited to capacious, experimental narrative form, the mode of engagement presented by Leopold Bloom in James Joyce’s Ulysses serves as a productive response to Rita Felski’s call that we expand our interpretative vocabulary by offering both aesthetic and hermeneutic possibilities for thinking through otherness.  I propose to read the mid-point episode of “Lestrygonians,” which is shaped by encounters and imagination of otherness throughout Bloom’s studied deferral of self, alongside the novel’s final ‘other’ narrative in Penelope, rendered (and gendered) by Molly Bloom. This pairing poses a series of questions for giving voice to otherness, or reading alterity as a process of textual encounter: 1) Through a shared linguistic inflection and historical referent, how do the pair’s voicings of each other generate a community of memory and identification through the acknowledgment of Bloom’s otherness? 2) How does Joyce’s strategy of a gendered, othered “language of flow” in “Penelope” help to locate Bloom’s relationship to his own otherness? 3) How do the aesthetic and narrative productions of otherness in Ulysses invite the ethical imagination of the reader, as a kind of deep engagement with the mode of narrative as process of thinking through otherness? These questions allow a reading of ethical engagement via narrative as process of acknowledgment, suggested by positionality and relationality rather than articulated as an event or act of encounter. Through the risk of representing the disunified self, I will argue, Joyce’s meditation on alterity helps to generate a reflexive ethical voice and to renew hermeneutic engagement with our interpretative position.

""NOTE: This was slated to appear in "Frontiers of Literary Studies in China" (Brill Press but controlled/owned by HEP in China/Beijing; edited by Zhang Xudong). But was cut/censored at the last minute by a wise Party editor for mentioning Mao and the Cultural Revolution too much [which it doesn't really do, but I digress].  It now finds a happy home in a longer-standing, bilingual, Shanghai-based journal instead.  Such are the vagaries of publishing in China-- not that speech is so free elsewhere either.



Abstract: With a few exceptions much of the knowledge of modern China produced in the world either ignores or demonizes the Mao era. On the cultural front things are not much better, whether we are speaking of the “Seventeen-year’s Literature” or the culture of the 1960s and 1970s. The negation of the Mao or radical era is, in short, a crucial part of contemporary Sinological-orientalism. There is however a recovery and reorientation project underway that seeks to restore the complexity of the Mao decades and its pursuit of an alternative, agrarian, and socialist modernity.  As part of this project I offer an appropriately Foucaultian and Marxist notion of Maoist discourse. By framing that era in terms of its past Maoist discourse we can at least begin to take the revolution and its culture more seriously in its own terms and self-understanding. This has the added advantage of explaining the productive power and subjectivity of Chinese Maoism and its culture without recourse to the Cold War/colonial notion of “totalitarianism.” Yet Maoist discourse, like China’s “alternative modernity,” remains concepts more often announced than substantiated. The rich, challenging work of the rural writer Zhao Shuli offers us an ideal case study of what Maoist discourse was in cultural-philosophical terms. The second part of this essay offers a reading of selected short fiction from Zhao in terms of how it draws on and illuminates Maoist discourse, resulting in a literary art of remarkable political complexity and contextual detail. With Zhao it is “politics in command” in a genuine sense; this is not a flaw but its entire point.

KEYWORDS : Zhao Shuli    orientalism    left-wing literature    rural labor    Marxism

Daniel Vukovich (胡德) works at Hong Kong University in the School of Humanities, where he teaches post-colonial, literary, and cultural studies with an emphasis on the PRC and “China-West” issues.

标题：对毛泽东时代话语的一种厚重描述：以赵树理为例
摘要：在当今世界对现代中国的知识生产中，毛泽东时代要么被忽视要么被妖魔化；而在文化领域内，提起“十七年文学”或上世纪六七十年代的文学时，事态也不见更好。对这激进时代的否定可谓是当代东方主义式汉学的关键内容，但当下学界也有一种试图恢复并重建的努力，将毛泽东时代的追求作为一种另类的农业社会的现代性，对其复杂性加以探讨。本文试图从福柯理论与马克思主义的角度研读毛泽东时代的话语方式，将所述时代置于其自身的语境阐释其生产力与主体性，以区别于当下将这一时代置于冷战-殖民观念之下的阐释视野。赵树理小说创作为我们从文化哲学层面阐释这个时代提供了理想的个案，本文第二部分即以赵树理的短篇小说为例。作者认为赵树理的小说，以其具有高度政治复杂性的艺术自觉，达到了真正意义上的“政治挂帅”的文学。
关键词：赵树理      东方主义    左翼文学    农民    马克思主义
作者：胡德（Daniel Vukovich），香港大学人文学院副教授，主要从事后殖民、文学、文化等领域的教研工作。电邮：vukovich@hku.hk
""

"“Fakat bir "yabancı dil" nedir? Ve birisinin "kendi dili" ne anlama gelir? Ve Felsefe nedir? (Was ist – die Philosophie?)(1955) kitabında yer alan şu etkileyici cümleleri nasıl anlamalıyız?: "Grek lisanı ama yalnızca o,  λόγος'tur … onda söylenen, aynı zamanda öncelikli bir biçimde söylenen isimlendirendir (nennt) … Grek kulağı ile işitilen bir kelime ile mevcudiyetin bizatihi kendisinin içinde müşahede ettiğimiz şey olarak var olmaktayızdır, öncelikle sadece cümlesel bir mananın varlığı içinde değilizdir." Niçin ilk bakışta Grek lisanına aşırı bir öncelik tanınmaktadır? Bu imtiyaz, diğer tüm diller arasında sadece bir tek dile öncelik tanıma meselesi midir? Ve bir lisan, eğer bu bir lisan ise, bize "şeylerin kendilerinin" varlığı için(d)e nasıl yer verir? Heidegger'in kitabı farklı bir şekilde işitilmelidir: Grek lisanı kendi içinde tercüme edilemez-idiomatic- olan hesaba katıldığında "lisan"dır: isimler. Heidegger'in kitabının dayandığı zıtlık, isimlendirme ve işaretleme (nennen/bedeuten ) zıtlığıdır. Şu halde ismin interlinguistik (dillerarası) tercümesi hiçbir zaman mümkün değildir; isim tercüme-iktibasa bağımlıdır: isim birçok lisanda iktibas edilir. İdyum (deyim) olarak bir isim, birçok dile nüfuz edebilir ve onların içine geçebilir. Yani böylece, Grek lisanına tanınan öncelikten okumamız gereken, genel olarak lisanın mahiyetinin belirlenmesidir. ... (s. 346-347)

 

...(1) Bir dil daima tercüme süreci içindedir, dil bizzat kendisi ve kendi içinde bir tercüme sürecidir. .... (2) Bir dil kendisi ile bir monologtur. ... Şiir, bu "monoloğa" veya bu intraidiomatik (dil içi) farklılığa götürendir. ... (3) Bir idiom, bir lisan değildir. Bir idyum lisanı aşar; lisan içinde hapis kalamaz, bir idyum birçok dilke nüfuz edip onlar içinde yol alabilir. Bu hususiyet, Heidegger'in hakikat ve bu hakikat (açısından) istihale analizinde açıklığa kavuşturulmuştur: Heidegger, bu iki dil arasında hiçbir linguistik (dilsel) farklılık yokmuş gibi Grekçe'den Almanca'ya geçebilmektedir; hiçbir interlinguistik farklılık yoktur: Heidegger, genel bir idiom ele almakta, bir şekilde bunu sadece iki-lisan-arsında izah etmektedir. (s. 344-345)

  ...

 

Hareket noktası, Parmenides'in άλήθεια hakkındaki "fragmanı"dır. Heidegger, άλήθεια'yı doğrudan Almanca Unverborgenheit (gaybın vahyi beyanı veya sırrın zahir olması) kelimesi ile tercüme etmektedir. Bu tercümede ne gerçekleşmiş olmaktadır? Ne açıdan bakarsak bakalım aynı lisan içinde kalmaya devam ediyoruz: Sanki Unverborgenheit  Grekçe'den Almanca'ya yapılmış bir iktibas gibidir. Bu durumda, Άλήθεια/Unverborgenheit, hem Grekçe hem de Almanca için genel bir idyum teşkil etmektedir: birinden ötekine geçiş "mebdei bir tercümedir"-yani intraidiomatik bir tercümedir. ("an originary translation"-an intraidiomatic translation.") Hepsi bu kadar değil.  Unverborgenheit, άλήθεια'nın özünü açmamıza izin vermektedir: yani "çarpışıcı öz" olarak- yani "esrarlılık karşısında tecessüsi bir cehd mücadelesi" olarak (GA 54: 27). Böylece ne olmuş bulunuyor? Grekçe'den, Almanca vasıtasıyla tekrar Grekçe'ye geçmiş oluyoruz; Almanca, Grekçe'den Grekçe içine geçişimizdeki tekrara izin veren değişim, mübadele lisanı (relay language) rolünü oynamaktadır. (s. 345)

 

(Eliane ESCOUBAS, "Ontology of Language and Ontology of Translation in Heidegger", Reading Heidegger: Commemorations, ed. by John SALLIS, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1993, Indiana University Press içinde, s. 341-351.)

"

The eleventh number of Lo Sguardo will focus on the relationship between autobiography, self-narrative and hermeneutics of the subject. The number will have two major conceptual pillars. On the one hand, a section focused on theoretical contributions. In this section, we aim at emphasizing the dynamic and dialectical relationship that links the subject (narrating himself) to the same tools of the narrative: material and language. More precisely, this section highlights the link between the narrative and the hermeneutic constitution and articulation of the inner self. On the other hand, another section of historical interventions aiming at investigating the philosophical and linguistic categories through which many philosophers represented themselves in the history of thought.

"ABSTRACT
This book examines the doctrine of transgenerational punishment found in the Decalogue: the idea that God punishes sinners vicariously and extends the punishment due them to three or four generations of their progeny. Already in ancient Israel, even though it was a “God-given” law, the unfairness of punishing innocent people merely for being the children or grandchildren of wrongdoers was clearly recognized. A series of inner-biblical and post-biblical responses to the rule demonstrates that later writers were able to criticize, reject, and replace this problematic doctrine with the alternative notion of individual retribution. From this perspective, the formative canon is the source of its own renewal: it fosters critical reflection upon the textual tradition and sponsors intellectual freedom.

To round out the volume, a final chapter provides a valuable bibliographical essay on the distinctive approach of “inner-biblical exegesis.” This resource will support further study and shows the contributions of European, Israeli, and North American scholars. The volume opens new perspectives on current debates within the humanities about canonicity, textual authority, and authorship. There is an extended discussion of the formation of the German literary canon (Mme de Stael; Heinrich Heine and the "portatives Kanon") and of German intellectual history (Immanuel Kant).

KEYWORDS
Decalogue, Divine Justice, Canon, Intertextuality, Allusion, Immanuel Kant, inner-biblical exegesis, relecture, Fortschreibung, Kanon, Textuality, Literary Theory, Hammurabi, Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, scribal curriculum, Ruth, Authorship, Ezekiel 18, Hittite Laws, Lamentations 5:7; Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 7, Deuteronomy 5; Targum; Deut 24; individual responsibility; repentance; transgenerational punishment; vicarious punishment, Kanonformel, Mme de Stael, Land der Dichter und Denker; Heinrich Heine; portatives Kanon; portable canon; Immanuel Kant; literary approach to Bible; legal hermeneutics; interdisciplinary.


REVIEWS

"This just might be the best book I’ve read in a long time. It’s challenged my assumptions about the development of the Hebrew Bible and the role of innovation alongside preservation. . . . All in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the issues of early biblical interpretation and the formation of the biblical canon. Specialists across the board in religious studies and biblical studies would profit from a closer look at Levinson’s book. I’m recommending it to everyone I know—NT students, rabbinics experts, early Christian studies people, Hebrew Bible colleagues—you know who you are—read this book!"
—Douglas Mangum, Biblia Hebraica: A Blog about the Hebrew Bible; http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com (2009)

"The book deserves a wide readership. It would serve well as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses that deal with inner-biblical exegesis. One can also hope that scholars in other fields will read it and take to heart Levinson’s argument for the reintegration of biblical studies into the core of academic work in the humanities. In addition, there are faith communities that would be encouraged by Levinson’s insight into the nature of canon and the necessity for ongoing reinterpretation of tradition. The book’s research is thorough, its argument forceful, its writing elegant, and it is blessedly short. If books can be placed into tribes, may this one’s increase."
—Bruce Wells, Review of Biblical Literature; http://www.bookreviews.org (2010)

"Biblical studies were once integrated into the center of scholarship and even its moving agent. With this study Levinson wants to reintegrate the study of the Hebrew Bible into the overall humanities discourse. The religious canon of the Hebrew Bible is not an inflexible collection of books that stands in the way of innovation. Levinson analyses the phenomenon of the rewriting of texts both inside (e.g. legal change) and outside the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Targum) to demonstrate the opposite. The example of transgenerational punishment shows, the exegetical processes involved in this rewriting point not only to dynamic and creative processes inside the canon of the Hebrew Bible but show how a canon initiated and initiates innovation as its driving engine. Levinson points e.g. to a nexus between the emergence of the German literary canon and academic biblical studies. With this study Levinson demonstrates again how he masterfully integrates his own exegetical brilliance into larger theoretical frameworks beyond the constraints of biblical studies. Especially helpful to the specialist and colleagues from other fields is a long essay on the history of research about rewriting processes inside the Hebrew Bible (91–181)."
—Armin Lange, Journal of Ancient Judaism 1:2 (2010)

"The bibliographical essay is an excellent overview of research on what is now often called ‘inner-biblical exegesis,’ and it will serve as a superb tool for beginners and seasoned researchers alike. The other essays span a vast array of methodological problems and exegetical insights and are at the forefront of current research into legal traditions in the HB. A highly welcome volume."
—Joachim Schaper, SOTS Book List 2009 =JSOT 33 (2009)

"Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me to be beyond any reasonable doubt that, behind the final form of the canonical, biblical text lies evidence of a lively, imaginative, and creative use of interpretation, reinterpretation, and reapplication of earlier texts. It is a complex, living, creative achievement which, for just this reason, invites constant, continuing invention, as Levinson maintains. I certainly find this book itself a delightful, informative, and stimulating one to read."
—Rex Mason, Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009)

"The book’s most innovative contribution lies in its first . . . half, which explores the relation between biblical studies and the humanities. . . . As L. notes—rightly in my judgment—this deeply rooted separation of Jerusalem from Athens has been to no one’s advantage. His discussion of the relationship between the concept of ethics in Kant and in Ezekiel demonstrates how much both disciplines might gain from such a conversation. The secularization of the liberal arts has left them largely uninformed about contemporary ways of reading the Bible. Recent discussions in the humanities could find much of value in biblical studies’ sophisticated ways of thinking about canonicity. . . .

"The essays that constitute the first half of this book are the product of more than a decade and a half of research and deliberation. Their sustained and fluent reflection on important issues will reward contemplation by biblical scholars, while the bibliographic essay that makes up the second half will be a useful tool for those interested in exploring the growing body of work on inner-biblical exegesis."
—Frederick E. Greenspahn, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009)

"This is a revised and expanded essay first published in French in 2005. The concern is inner-biblical exegesis, an important area of recent Old Testament research and a subject to which Levinson is a significant contributor. The first half of the book sets the subject of inner-biblical exegesis within the context of canon. Levinson rightly observes that biblical exegesis is not a development that emerges after final canonization, but something occurring within the material from an early stage. For him canon is something that tends towards fixity, but yet the texts also attest radical innovation as texts are disputed even within the canon itself. One extended case study occupies a significant part of Levinson’s attention: those texts that deal with intergenerational punishment. Levinson seeks to show that Ezekiel and Deuteronomy 7 deliberately cite the Decalogue in order to subvert its plain meaning and offer a reinterpretation where individuals receive reward and punishment for their own deeds. This reinterpretation of the Decalogue is determinative for later Jewish thinking. The final chapter contributes half of the book’s length and is a bibliographical essay on inner-biblical exegesis. It traces the subject from Wellhausen through the very earliest observers of the biblical literature’s literary (rather than oral) inter-relationships to the most recent works. Pithy and perceptive introductions to all the major literature on inner-biblical exegesis are given and this is an extremely valuable resource for more advanced students. This would be an excellent addition to any theological library and it is to be hoped that the publisher will soon release a paperback version so more students can enjoy the fruits of Levinson’s labours."
—Nathan MacDonald, Theological Book Review 21 (2009)

"The format of this book . . . provides a thorough but brief introduction to inner-biblical exegesis approach, both in method and in theory. Anyone, scholar or student, who is interested in learning more about how the theoretical foundations of this approach as well as how it works will find the text invaluable. Second, for scholars in particular, the footnotes and the bibliographic essay are excellent and up-to-date resources of the field. The bibliographic essay was a particularly delightful read in that Levinson connected many scholars with whom most readers will have at least a passing acquaintance in a new way. Third, the length and style of this text make it very accessible to both upper-level undergraduate students and graduate students working in the area of biblical interpretation or looking more generally at the idea of canon."
—Karla Suomala, Review of Biblical Literature 11 (2009)

"Throughout the text, L.’s careful work leads him to exhort the humanities explicitly to engage in greater interdisciplinary dialogue. Academic biblical studies have engaged and incorporated insights from other disciplines into exegesis, but colleagues in comparative literature, history of religions, and related fields have not reciprocated to the same degree. ‘Unfortunately, many within the broader academic community are woefully uninformed about how to read the Bible critically, historically, and intellectually’ (93)."
—John J. Pilch, Theological Studies 70:4 (2009): 967–68

"In his foray into the topic of the Ten Commandments in history and tradition seen from the vantage point of inner-biblical exegesis, Bernard Levinson zeroes in on the question of moral agency. It is hard to think of a more fundamental topic at the interface of law and theology. Levinson understands Ezekiel 18 to amount to a covert repudiation of the doctrine of cross-generational transfer of the consequences of human behavior as it finds expression in the Decalogue at Exod 20:5–6.1. A brilliant thesis, one I hope receives a wide hearing."
—John Hobbins, Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog; http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com (2009)

"In this book, Levinson considers the literary and textual authority of scripture and the creative conventions that led to its production. . . . With an extensive bibliographic essay outlining the contributions of renowned scholars, prominent in the field of inner-biblical exegesis, this exhaustive book recognizes the need for a more innovative and intuitive debate within the wider humanities about canonicity, textual authority and authorship. . . . I was inspired by Levinson’s theories and would certainly recommend this book to scholars interested in the textual construction of scripture. . ."
—Benjamin Bury, Reviews in Religion and Theology 17:3 (2010): 279–80

"Best Book on Inner-Biblical Exegesis Ever!
I’m pleased to announce that this thought-provoking volume is now available in an affordable paperback edition. My hope is that it will reach a wider audience in biblical studies, especially graduate students interested in the formation of the Hebrew Bible and inner-biblical exegesis."
—Douglas Mangnum, Biblia Hebraica et Graeca; A Blog about the Hebrew Bible; http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com (2010)

“The book may claim to be about the dynamics of legal (i.e. halachic) development within the Bible, but the underlying message deals with the viability of theories of halachic change in the contemporary Jewish community. That is why it should be required reading for participants in law committees and students of Jewish law.”
—Rabbi Neil Gillman, in CJ: Voices of Conservative/Masorti Judaism, Summer 2011, p. 9 [online: http://www.wlcj.org/articlenav.php?id=416]

“This slender volume . . . sets out the discipline of “inner-biblical exegesis” by one of its foremost practitioners today. The author, Bernard Levinson, sets himself apart from most other inner-biblical exegetes in two ways. The first is his desire to engage in dialogue with disciplines outside of biblical studies. The second is the scrupulous attention he pays to ancient Near Eastern legal texts as sources for illuminating biblical law. . . . Levinson is to be applauded for this fine volume, which demonstrates his preferred methodology clearly and concisely for a broad academic audience.”
—Sidnie White Crawford, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 40 (2010): 165–166

“Levinson’s book is a gem and deserves a wide readership.”
—Megan Warner, in Australian BiblicalReview 59 (2011);
www.fbs.org.au/reviews/levinson59b.html

"Legal Revision and Religious Renewal concludes with an extensive annotated bibliography (86 pages!) that is primarily populated with books from Biblical Studies. This section will be most helpful for specialists in the fields of Biblical and Judaic Studies. Some of the arguments, however, may prove inspiring for scholars outside the field."
—Michael J. Chan, Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (2012); online: http://www.case.edu/artsci/jdst/reviews/Legal.htm"

Human cultures generate meanings, and the history of ideas, broadly conceived, is the study of these meanings. An adequate theory of culture must therefore rest on a suitable philosophical enquiry into the nature of the history of ideas. Mark Bevir's book explores the forms of reasoning appropriate to the history of ideas, enhancing our understanding by grappling with central questions such as: What is a meaning? What constitutes objective knowledge of the past? What are beliefs and traditions? How can we explain why people held the beliefs they did? The book ranges widely over issues and theorists associated with post-analytic philosophy, post-modernism, hermeneutics, literary theory, political thought, and social theory.

“We hope you will find these thoughts of ours both interesting and useful.” These are words spoken to express an intention, a bearing in the mind of a person toward an object which is yet to be achieved. The readiest moment of human life involves the interplay of signs, ideas, and objects — more explicitly, the interrelation of signifying expressions, states and dispositions of the mind or person, and objects or objectives either actual or potential. Our work designing instruments to enhance the play of inquiry has attuned us to the themes of interpretation and intentionality which every inquiry seems to involve. We hear what sounds like familiar strains reaching us from the hermeneutic quarter. The purpose of this essay is to trace to their sources a few of these potentially common themes, to draw out one line of their historical development, and to gather what consequences they inspire for educational practice and continued inquiry.

We start with the ambition -- dating back to the early days of the semantic web -- of assembling a significant portion of human knowledge into a contradiction-free form using semantic web technology. We argue that this would not be desirable, because there are concepts, known as essentially contested concepts, whose definitions are contentious due to deep-seated ethical disagreements. Further, we argue that the ninetenth century hermeneutical tradition has a great deal to say, both about the ambition, and about why it fails. We conclude with some remarks about statistics.