Phenomenology and Hermeneutic Literary Theory

Author: Wang Yuanchuan
Editor-in-Chief: Wang Yuanchuan
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 1999-04-01
Features:
Content Summary: This book is divided into two parts. The first part conducts an in-depth analysis of the phenomenological theories of Husserl, Ingarden, Merleau-Ponty, Dufrenne, and the Geneva School represented by Pley, elucidating the theoretical essence of the important philosophical aesthetic school of phenomenology in the 20th century and its main contributions to literary theory. The second part studies a series of hermeneutic literary theories, such as Diltheye's "methodological hermeneutics," Gadamer's "philosophical hermeneutics," Ricoeur's text theory, and Hirsch's "objective hermeneutics," providing a systematic and comprehensive exploration of hermeneutic philosophy and literary thought.
Excerpt: The crisis of philosophy itself made philosophy forget its divine mission to "think," and naturalism, historicism, and psychologism became increasingly popular, which posed a risk of losing philosophy's scientific nature. In Philosophy as a Strict Science, Husserl said, "Our life goals are generally of two types: temporary and permanent. One goal is to make ourselves and our contemporaries' lives perfect, and the other is to benefit future generations. Science is a title representing absolute, timeless values." The phenomenology that Husserl regarded as a "strict science" is such an endeavor to pursue the "philosophical ideal of permanence." In Husserl's view, the entire history of philosophy swung between the poles of "mind and object": in ancient Greece, the cradle of European civilization, there was the opposition between "natural philosophy" and "ideal philosophy"; in the Middle Ages, there was the debate between nominalism and realism; in modern times, there was the opposition between empiricism and transcendentalism. Most philosophers fell into dualism between mind and object, viewing them from an abstract and isolated perspective. Only phenomenology brought the transcendentalism of European philosophy to its full extent, completely freeing the "mind" from the "object" and establishing it as a strict science. Husserl opposed the dualism of "mind" and "object" in philosophy and strove to seek absolute certainty. At the end of the 19th century, when Nietzsche vigorously rejected absolute certainty in favor of uncertainty, Husserl took the opposite approach, viewing the pursuit of absolute certainty as the meaning of his life. In a diary entry in 1906, he wrote, "I am tormented by persistent doubts due to the lack of clarity. I must win clarity, otherwise I cannot live." In January 1905, he wrote to his teacher Brentano, "I chose my topic and path myself, not for martyrdom, but out of an irresistible necessity. Think of the pain I must endure! I do not like associating with those who live for fame and profit without a cause." It can be said that Nietzsche and Husserl, the two philosophers who greatly influenced 20th-century Western thought—one engaged in destruction and the other in construction—symbolize the irreconcilable conflict in Western intellectual circles of the century. Just after Nietzsche's death, Husserl's phenomenology was born. From then on, Husserl embarked on a philosophical to establish a reasonable connection between the realm of consciousness and certainty, pursuing it throughout his life. The true task of philosophy is to seek absolute truth. Husserl said, "The purpose of philosophy as a true science is to seek absolute, ultimate, and valid truth beyond all relativity." However, he believed that no philosopher before him had been able to provide such truth. Instead, he had created confusion on this issue, plunging the entire science, and indeed the entire European civilization, into crisis. Therefore, the task of phenomenological philosophy is to critique various fallacies about truth, provide humanity with eternal, absolute truth, and save the crisis of science and European civilization.
Postscript: I have been engaged in the study of phenomenology and hermeneutics for over a decade, and it has taken me this long to write this relatively thin book. This is not only due to the reasons of busy academic duties but also related to changes in my academic interests. In the mid-1980s, I immersed myself in the study of phenomenology and hermeneutics, first translating a book (Phenomenology of Literature, Cultural Arts Press, 1992), then writing two long essays on phenomenology and hermeneutics (Phenomenology and Hermeneutics, published in A Review of Modern Western Philosophical Trends, Tsinghua University Press, 1990), and also writing a series of thematic essays on Diltheye, Gadamer, Ingarden, Dufrenne, and (Yao Si) (published in A Coursebook on Famous Works of Western Literary Theory, Volume 2, Peking University Press, 1989, and A Critical Biography of Famous Western Aestheticians, Volume 2, Anhui Education Press, 1990). At that time, I had planned to write a book, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I shifted my focus to postmodern cultural issues and contemporary cultural theory, which temporarily interrupted the writing of this book. Now, this book, written intermittently, has finally been completed and included in the "Series on the Study of 20th-Century Western Literary Theory," finally settling a matter in my heart. In these years, my academic interests have undergone some changes. I believe this is merely an internal adjustment of my knowledge structure, psychological structure, and perspective on the self, or a clearing of my own thoughts. It should be noted that I am concerned with "" (the issue of the times) but not with "fashionable tastes," but rather with the true roots of academic thought and new academic discourse that are obscured or forgotten in the present. Therefore, my focus on contemporary theory is merely at the level of "problem awareness." In fact, the true intention of my personal academic adjustment may lie in the effort to transcend the constraints of time and disciplines, continuously transcending old knowledge structures, searching for fragments of historical thought, and engaging in dialogue with personal and historical souls. I seem reluctant to conform to the modern bureaucratic system that determines people's fate within a professional framework, but rather want to position myself as a meaning-seeking inquirer into contemporary intellectual and theoretical issues. In my view, a true thinker is one who engages in self-reflection and critique, questions the premises of their own problems, and suspends historical myths, rather than a general cultural critic. Therefore, the relationship between scholars and the times, as well as the relationship between academia and the self, is unavoidable. Only those who do not become mere footnotes to history or mouthpieces of the times can truly be "thinkers." Thus, every scholar cannot escape the issue of self-positioning. In my opinion, the issue of self-positioning mainly includes two aspects:
1. Self-knowledge reflection. Our generation is different from previous generations, such as the May Fourth generation, which was academically comprehensive and became prominent figures. We are also different from the generation that follows us, which has abundant time and cultural resources to immerse themselves in reading good books. We are a generation caught in the cracks of historical disasters, boarding the last train, worn down by the hardships of the times and losing many precious moments. At the same time, the times have given us many valuable life treasures, many gifts of suffering, namely the examination of self-knowledge and the reflection on our "cultural identity." In our generation, there is a clear critical consciousness (grand theoretical intention), an elite intention (but not elite "ism"), and we do not approach any problem with a secularized, linguistic game, or even a power operation attitude. Instead, we emphasize continuously digging inward to achieve self-generation, constructing our own ideological foundation on the basis of increasing cultural capital or updating knowledge structures, and legitimizing our thoughts. Thus, there is less playfulness, less irony, and less of the bitterness of alienation felt by previous generations of scholars. We adopt a relatively calm and self-possessed attitude toward life, pursuing a refined and individual academic character, and generally reject the "flatness" of valueless discourse.
2. Self-stance reflection. Our generation is in two cracks: when studying Western learning, we feel our mother tongue slipping away, and our inner state gradually permeated by Western spirit. Especially in the post-colonial era, under the "gaze" and "control" of transnational capital, economic capital, and cultural symbolic capital, when third-world cultures are in a weak position, the identity and stance of contemporary scholars as intellectuals reveal a profound contradiction between theory and practice, mentality and discourse. How to introduce new discourse mechanisms, activate the rigid state of mother tongue culture, while ensuring that the spiritual essence of Eastern culture does not lose itself in this "introduction," truly depends on the clear rational analysis and profound value judgment of genuine scholars. Here, self-stance and self-identity definition become the cultural codes we must correctly write. On the other hand, if we neglect Western learning, reject, or even expel Western discourse, placing Western culture outside our vision, we will face deep "hermeneutic anxiety," losing the power and possibility of interpreting "modernity" and even "postmodernity," as well as the hermeneutic discourse for literary texts, artistic texts, social texts, and even entire cultural texts. If we persistently stand on a China-centered stance to view issues, it may easily make people feel that our perspective is not open enough, as if we are taking a step backward compared to the May Fourth spirit. Therefore, how to find one's true identity and value stance between the West and China, the individual and society, localization and globalization, without falling into the empty gap of being neither Eastern nor Western (banana people), and without putting oneself in an awkward position, is indeed a problem we must face. We are concerned with the times because the times have caused cultural interruptions and shaped us, but at the same time, we also make our own judgments on the times, because this painful historical memory will cause us to react to today's and tomorrow's academic research and re-examine certain historical myths and misinterpretations. In this way, a state of knowledge mixture may arise, where one either focuses on academia or on the times, and it is difficult to find a balance between the two. However, I will do my best to make my own unique choice. Regarding my academic choices, I believe they are mainly based on my own value judgment of the heart and nature. I think what a person can do does not depend on the field of study they pursue, but on how they pursue it; it does not depend on the scope they define, but on why they define such a scope. Academic work is the individual existential (ontological) problem that surges from the heart or is deeply felt as something that must be resolved, and only when it is expanded to social existential and human existential problems does it become a problem. Otherwise, purely personal problems will be difficult to become true academic problems. What I want to say is that the study of 20th-century Western cultural theory and literary theory is quite important. This is not only about clarifying the Western cultural context but also about absorbing the experiences and lessons of Western modernity. Perhaps, in an era full of vanity and misinterpretations, we can no longer ignore the fundamental problems facing humanity, especially the important issues of the meaning of life and the world (phenomenology) and the interpretation of meaning (hermeneutics).
At the end, I extend my gratitude to Zhu Xiaochen, reviewer of Shandong Education Press, and Zang Wei, editor of this book. Wang Yuanchuan
Autumn Draft, 1994
Autumn Revision, 1997