Action, Intersubjectivity and Narrative Identity
Action, Intersubjectivity and Narrative Identity:
Essays on Critical Hermeneutics
By Vinicio Busacchi
Action, Intersubjectivity and Narrative Identity: Essays on Critical Hermeneutics
By Vinicio Busacchi
This book first published 2019
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2019 by Vinicio Busacchi
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-5275-4045-6 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4045-3 CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 1
Part I Methodology
Chapter 1 ...... 12 The Ricoeurianwards Way: a Critical Toneutics Herme foran the Hum and Social Sciences 1.1 Preamble 1.2 Whatcal is CritiHermeneutics? 1.3 Between Hermeneuticsand Critique of Ideology 1.4 Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy as an Interdisciplinary Procedure 1.5 Conclusion
Chapter 2 ...... 25 Textuality foras a Hermeneutics Paradigm 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Around Critical Hermeneutics 2.3 Around the Paradigm of the Text 2.4. Conclusion
Chapter 3 ...... 34 Hermeneutics “Reloaded”:cience/Philosophy From S Dichotomy to Critical Hermeneutics 3.1 Introduction: Persistent Hermeneutics’ Legitimacy and Its Paradoxes 3.2 Hermeneutics Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 3.3 Hermeneutics and Ontology 3.4 Hermeneutics and Epistemology 3.5 Critical Hermeneutics
Chapter 4 ...... 50 Ricoeur and Habermas:a Hermeneutical-Critical Towards Theory 4.1 Introduction 4.2 From Sociology to Philosophy of Recognition: Habermas’ Intersubjective communication vi Contents
4.3 Between Psychology and Sociology: Ricoeur’s Philosophy of Recognition 4.4 Conclusion
Chapter 5 ...... 58 Why Reality Is Not Introduction Totalisable:’s to An Paul Ricoeur Philosophy of Action 5.1 Preamble 5.2 From the Phenomenology of the Voluntary to the Hermeneutics of the Text 5.3 From Structuralism’snges to a Semantics Challe of Action 5.4 From Philosophy a Hermeneutical of Action to Philosophy of the Self 5.5. From Capacity to Initiative
Part II For a New Understanding of the Human Being
Chapter 6 ...... 70 The Human and Its Discourse: From Fragmentation to Unification 6.1 Preamble 6.2 General Charactersa Critical Hermeneutics of 6.3 The Metamorphoses of a Philosophical Anthropology 6.4 From the Logic of a Non-Substantialist to the Philosophy of Person Paradox of a Trapped Personality between Representationn and Ski 6.5 The Solution of an Integrated, Dynamic Humanism
Chapter 7 ...... 89 Habermas and Ricoeuron: Toward on Recogniti a Newsm Social Humani 7.1 Preamble 7.2 The Intersubjectivity in Habermas’ Social Theory 7.3 The Intersubjectivity in Ricoeur’s Philosophy 7.4 A Conclusion
Chapter 8 ...... 108 Semantics of Action:n between Human Motivation Actioion and Causat 8.1 Introduction: A Comprehensive Approach on the Human Being 8.2 Philosophy of Action between Causation and Motivation 8.3 From a Linguistic-Phenomenological Analysis to a Practical- Speculative Phenomenology 8.4 From Anscombe and Davidson’s Approach to Ricoeur’s Critical Hermeneutics Action, Intersubjectivity andvii Narrative Identity
8.5 From the Phenomenology of then Body to the Dialectics betwee Motivation, Causation and Desire 8.6 Conclusions
Part III Rebalancing Narrative Identity
Chapter 9 ...... 126 Telling a Life: Narration and Personal Identity 9.1 Preamble 9.2 A Tensional Mediation 9.3 The Problem of Narrative Identity 9.4 Conclusion
Chapter 10 ...... 139 Imagining maginationa Life: On I and Identity 10.1 Preamble 10.2 Imagination Today 10.3 Looking for a Narrative-Hermeneutic Approach 10.4 The Two Sides of Imagination 10.5 On Narration, Recognition and Personal Emancipation 10.6 Conclusion
Chapter 11 ...... 154 Image and Representationin Historical Knowledge 11.1 The Question of Representation 11.2 The Mechanism of Representation 11.3 The Representation of the Past 11.4 Conclusion
Chapter 12 ...... 169 Justice Through Recognition: From Philosophy to Action 12.1 Preamble 12.2 Psychology and Recognition 12.3 Sociology and Recognition 12.4 Politics and Recognition 12.5 Conclusion
References ...... 184
INTRODUCTION
In dissonance with the famous koinéthesis of of hermeneutics as a new contemporary philosophy,meneutical the field her be today seems to fragmented and more and more marginalised.ics and Of course, hermeneut philosophical hermeneuticse continue horizon ofto offer a great deal on th contemporary philosophy. On thecal other hand, however, hermeneuti philosophy is currently practiced, in the in such varied and vague ways most unlikely territories, andand under such dubious disciplinary procedural amalgamations, that koiné didit is beginning to seem that the not so much concern the interrelationd facts or between interpretation an the antecedencerpretation of inte beforead facts, abuse as of the widespre the very ideace of or anteceden predominance.
How can we continue to supportkoiné the in light idea of hermeneutics as of this?
First of all, we must abandon theianni interpretative extension of G Vattimo’s proposition and return to his circumscribed idea that “hermeneuticskoiné of philosophy,is the or more generally, of the culture of the eighties” (Vattimo 1987).ainly This makes is a downsizing that cert this thesis more acceptable evenarginalise if it tends to counterpoise, m and misrecognise the role and growing importance of analytical philosophy. At the same time,lps it represents us to a rereading that he properly (re-)establishecific proposal themeneutics sp of a critical that her Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) – who f constitutes this the main reference o book – advances in that same period,derstanding prospecting a different un of the role and position of philosophicalicoeur uses hermeneutics today. R philosophy to work between philosophyetween and science, as well as b the so-called “continental”phy, philosophy giving and “analytical” philoso them equal importance.cal hermeneutics His criti, both fully in reflects methodology and speculative development, this vast the characteristics of and tensional philosophical work.
Starting from another speculativechard Rorty tradition and perspective, Ri aims to realise something similar: “analytical a dialectical bridge between world” and “continentalPhilosophy world”. in America today In his work 2 Introduction
(1981) he advances exactly this the idea with the full awareness of respective philosophical cultural differences. and
Critical hermeneutics“container” is not thatary a collectscorpus of a unit answers, argumentssee Bayón or theories 2006,a school,26). ( It is a not tradition or an ideological movement,exercise but essentially a way to philosophical hermeneutics in on connection the with other procedures, field of practicaltical and/or philosophy, theoretween as well as be philosophy and science, or amongis of philosophies a and sciences. It certain interest to consider then B. interpretation advanced by Joh Thompson and Charlesreading E. Reagan, Ricoeur’s d re approach an proposal as a way to hermeneuticallysocial restructure the human and sciences or, rather, as a way as to a consider science critical hermeneutics (see Thompson 1991; Reagan 1991).
The option of hermeneutical humanboth andon a social sciences operates theoretical-methodologicalstemologicalt and basis, does epi not even if i seem to properly reflect Ricoeur’say. project in a comprehensive w Ricoeur refusesboth the a attempt philosophical atf the levelling o sciences and a scientific levellingand, a of philosophy. On the one h methodological cal and model epistemologi can be extracted from Ricoeur’s philosophybeing able itself, to tively work and, interpreta and analytically-descriptively,y be used for human sciences. it maand social On the other hand,hensive such a and compre flexibleas approach w conceived by Ricoeur for a differentose, that and more vast kind of purp is, to provide comprehensive knowledgeut in of the human being: to p connection and dialogue all (scientificcourses and non-scientific) dis around the human. Clearly, beingphilosophical this is a task.
Today the hyper-specialisationience and and hyper-sectorialisation of sc other research fields makes thisqual differentiationto the of knowledge e disintegration of knowledge. A - comprehensive synthesis, or meta disciplinary recomposition, seemsy and, impossible even for philosoph perhaps, it does not representversely, the real it or essential point. Con appears to be more achievableo and reinforce useful a goal to find a way t collaboration and connection betweens. This the sciences and knowledge necessity finds significantd reverberation in science. both in philosophy an
With regard to the perspectiveilosophy of a dialectical and link between ph the human and social sciences,ch different have perspectives of resear developed. Some, for example,ot recognise depend that objectivity does n on substantial differences inon the formal object of investigation, nor Action, Intersubjectivity and3 Narrative Identity differences betweenrather methods, from the but procedures of objectification underway withinds of the specific disciplines or kin knowledge. It is therefore notthe so human much a question of comparing sciences with the natural sciences as two paradigmatic types of scientificity, so much as rethinkinglly, the procedures more genera according to how the objects ofbecome the various scientific domains thinkable and considerable.on, In the falseperspective of objectificati antinomies between universal and, unique, general and particular nomothetic and idiographic, aref all suspended to think in general o possible objects. How, and through whatts formal configurations, do objec become thinkable? In this perspective,etween there is no opposition b nature and history (see Borutti 1999, 19–20).
The idea of criticalthat hermeneuticsthis books advances to the refer philosophical project of Habermas the early (i.e. writings a kind of Jürgen of a critical theory) and to the and 1960’s Hans- debate between Habermas George Gadamer betweenversus the the critique hermeneutics of ideology of tradition. Into this debate,in nuce a even first Ricoeur enters, proposing idea of a philosophicalutics with hermene critical functions.
In my research, I have for years critical been advancing the thesis that hermeneutics represents both thethe vastunifying methodological key of Ricoeurian research, and the philosophy essential tool for the exercise of today as an intra- and inter-discipline.
Today, philosophy no longer livesf. It by is nourishing itself by itsel destined to die if it does notif work it is with not and for the sciences, exercised as a bridge-discipline,ibute to if the it does not actively contr advancement of knowledge, dialogue and contamination between knowledges, traditions and cultures.
Action, Intersubjectivity and Narrative Identity: Essays on Critical Hermeneutics articulates itsguments analyses in twelve and ar chapters distributed in three parts: respectively,rs 1–5), “Methodology” (Chapte “For a New Understanding of the Humand Being” (Chapters 6–8), an “Rebalancingtity” Narrative (Chapters Iden 9–12).
Chapter 1, titled “The Ricoeurianneutics Way: Towards A Critical Herme for the Human and”, Social presents Sciences a paperin the published American International Journal of Social Science in 2015 (see Busacchi 2015a). Focusing on Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical methodology as 4 Introduction practised in his mature speculativefile a work, it is possible to pro hermeneutical proceduralthat of a model: critical, hermeneutics methodologically and epistemologically part by structured, for the most following thearc theory herméneutique of. Ricoeur’s the reinterpretation of Freud’s psychoanalysis offersnd one of the first theoretical a disciplinary bases for thisphy theory, offers and in his practice of philoso itself the model of a philosophyy and exercised as a as a practical theor human and social, science. Ricoeur’s Indeed criticalcs is at hermeneuti once a philosophy, a philosophicalal model approach, and a methodologic for the human and, whichsocial works sciences toplanation coordinate ex and understanding under the rule of interpretation.
Chapter 2, titled “Textuality eeply as a Paradigm for Hermeneutics” d reconsiders andalysis re-treats developed thegave an for in athe paper I 3rd International Multidisciplinaryl Scientific Conference on Socia Sciences & Arts SGEM 2016 given infirst Vienna, 2016 6–9 April (the version of the talkin: can Busacchi be found 2016a).r This pape reconsiders Paul Ricoeur’s speculativective of a research from the perspe critical hermeneuticsas a general understood methodology is able which to work at an interdisciplinarylosophy level, and particularly between phi the social and human specialisation sciences. The in science constitutes a differentiation of knowledge thatl as determines advancement as wel provokes a great increase in complexityg the and fragmentation. Amon human sciences, some problematiclysis, disciplines, such as psychoana sociology and history, have notcal yet and found a unified methodologi epistemological structure revealingmitation; an in objective, scientific li this regard, criticals may work hermeneutic as a mediatoryr-discipline. inte
Chapter 3, titledeloaded’” “Hermeneutics presentsblished ‘R a paper in pu the inauguralCritical volume Hermeneutics. of Biannual International Journal of Philosophy in December 2017 (see Busacchi 2017). Currently, hermeneutics koinè is , no yet longer it pervades a the field of human knowledge on different and diverse levels. With the decline of philosophical hermeneutics,nheritance of of a the rich thought, i tradition there remains someant problematic very importornerstones and speculative c and a poorly orderedhermeneutical horizon ofcedures, practices to and pro varying degrees technical and/orte picture speculative. From this composi the (negative) possibility of without truths without method and methods truth or validity emerges; andms thence, of again, emerge the proble consistency, rigour and philosophicale risk of legitimacy, along with th non-rational seductions and/orother ideological point distortions. From an of view, philosophy and reflectionons have within hermeneutical traditi Action, Intersubjectivity and5 Narrative Identity elaboratedt critical sufficien content nition and devices of an for the defi organised, rigorous andcomprehensive controlled procedure. model of a From this perspective, Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical work seems emblematic. From his philosophyeral it model is possible to extract a gen of a non-philosophically-engaged hermeneutical method, which is valuable for the human and socialprocedure sciences as well as a useful for interdisciplinary is critical work. hermeneutics:ecific This form of a sp speculativeand theoretical hermeneutics whose methodological and epistemological foundation mirrorsrary the new form of the contempo hermeneutic-scientifickoinè.
Chapter 4, “Ricoeur and Habermas”,analysis reconsiders and deepens the of a talk I gaverd International at the 3 Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM 2016, held in Albena (Bulgaria), 22–31 August (the in: first Busacchi version of the talk appears 2016d). This chapter aims to provide issues a better understanding of related to the theme of recognitionphilosophy. in sociology, politics and As Charles Taylor underlines,human recognition constitutes a “vital need”; consequently,an end, it nor cannot a means ing be or someth similar, but aciple basic and law, a fundamental a prin The passage reason. through Habermas and Ricoeur’ss sociology the of recognition stresse centrality of the other for human Thus, emancipation in and realisation. order to promote the real progressy, it is of of individuals and of societ central importancesophy that of emancipation a philo. In takes root addition, it is necessary to osophy promote, of sustain and deepen a phil communitarian participation and intersubjective recognition.
Chapter 5 is titled “Why Realityuces Is a Not Totalisable” and reprod paper publishedInternational in Journal the of Humanities and Social Science in 2017 (see Busacchi 2017e).s This article thematises Ricoeur’ speculativeparcours around the philosophy of action. It starts by offering a perspective on French (Continental) to the philosophy’s contribution Philosophy of Action. The rolesnty’s played by Sartre and Merleau-Po existential phenomenology andlarly by the Structuralists are particu emphasised, including to Ricoeur’s references speculativerch resea endeavours. These Ricoeurian developmentsr a can be connected unde general anthropological perspective,ive) creating a double (product implication: (1) to recogniseRicoeurian a new interpretative key for the parcours, and (2) to find a new (Ricoeurian)the way to defend the idea of gnoseological and epistemologicalthe reality impossibility that considers of the world as a comprehensive knowledge. 6 Introduction
Chapter 6 (which opens the seconde Human part of the book), titled “Th and Its Discourse: From Fragmentation a paper to Unification”, presents publishedInternational in the Journal of Humanities and Social Science in 2016 (see Busacchi16b). We 20 are living in an era in which the differentiation of knowledgepurred in the contemporarya sciences has s great increase in complexity. Onis the one hand, this complexity accompanied by specialisationd fragmentation;and, an on it the other h fosters increased research of and shared methods and vocabularies, interdisciplinarye character approaches. andhe complexity various Th of t intertwined series of challenges discourse and problems connected to this become particularly vivid ifscourse we consider of the knot around the di the human and thearadoxes contemporary relatednent p to idea the pre-emi of what it means to become a person.fers a Paul Ricoeur’s research of comprehensive contemporary,mple of the complex exaion ofinterconnect this dialectic. At the same time,eral modelit offers an example of a gen capable of being considered a ophymultilevel and methodology for philos the human and socialhis is sciences. critical theoretical- hermeneutics:T a practical and interdisciplinaryl procedure based on a transversa epistemology. In the end, the hy application and of Ricoeur’s philosop methodology to the concrete casel lead of contemporary to human life wil reasoning with new complexitiesin the and end, paradoxes, revealing that, any comprehensiveine attempt the human to being defe support requires th of a new, varied, nourished humanism.
Chapter 7, “Habermas and Ricoeurocial on Recognition: Toward a New S Humanism”, representsInternational a paper Journal published of in the Humanities and Social Science in 2015 (seei 2015b). Busacch The concept of recognition identifies a cornerstone of the new dynamic and problematic structuresorary social of contemphe life, problems including t of recognition in a multiculturalr recognition society, and the struggles fo of individuals, associations o and a identitarian groups. It is als fundamental termoretical for varoius and empirical theresearch, areas of such as psychology, sociologymine and thepolitics. This paper will exa issue of recognition in sociology,nce. It assuming starts a philosophical sta with a brief overview of the concept’sits most important uses and theoretical potential. It argueslematic that but philosophy reveals a prob potentially constructivebetween the balance two f key-concepts o “struggle” and “dialectics”.
Chapter 8, “Semantics of Action:on andHuman Action between Motivati Causation” summarisesnalysis the and main conclusionsd a in a achieve series of talksth International given at the 4 Multidisciplinary Scientific Action, Intersubjectivity and7 Narrative Identity
Conference on Social Sciences &28–31 Art SGEM 2017, in Vienna, 2017 March (published in: Busacchi ginning2017b; 2017c; 2017d). From the be of hisLe book discours de l’action (1977), Paul Ricoeur emphasises the importance of a approachpractical for ethical audy speculative of st human action and for a philosophicalapproaches theory of action. Ricoeur this question by intertwiningogy analytical and philosophy, phenomenol practical hermeneutics. Ricoeurulative profiles a new theoretical spec model of philosophy of actiond, which through is realised, on the one han a methodology articulated betweend linguistics, phenomenology an hermeneutics and, on the other,y and through a philosophy practicall ethically oriented. In the end,d it becomes clear that a deep an comprehensive philosophical study the of human action requires both intervention of a multileveled, and theoretical-practicalthe procedure establishment of a non-substantialisteing (i.e. philosophy of the human b Ricoeur’s philosophycapable human being of). the
Chapter 9 (which opens the thirdling part a Life: of the book), titled “Tel Narration and Personal Identity”, the presents a paper published in International Journal of Humanities and Social Science in 2018 (see Busacchi In 2018b). recent decades,of “narrative the theme identity” has seen significantarious development disciplinaryoth in v at a domains, b practical and interdisciplinaryevel. The issuesnarrative connected l to identity have (re-)gained a centralology and position not only in narrat philosophy, but even in psychologyrapeutic and in a number of psychothe approaches. Severalee with scholars the ideaological agr that the psych reality is narrative and thatsonal narration identity. is a determinant of per Starting from a short overviewerature on identity and and narration in lit narratology, this thematise article the aimsive issue identity to of narrat as the fulcrum of a scientific theorisation by showing how the interrelationshipo sciences between is theseoductive particularly tw in pr psychology as well as philosophy.
Chapter 10, “Imagining a Life:opens On Imagination a and Identity”, re paper strongly connected to thein previous the chapter and published same issue of the same journalve (see study Busacchi on 2018c). A reflecti the role of imagination in constructingolves both the the subjective self inv theme of representation of the imagination and that as a common speculative practice.r proceeds This from chapteoverview a speculative around the issue of personal identitytical to exploring the hermeneu analysis of certain uses of imaginationent in some of the most rec scientific studies. The aim islogical(- to (re-)determine which anthropo philosophical)ects model current best refl scientificnts in advanceme 8 Introduction recognising the function of imaginationtermination. in personal identity de The chapter goesat on Paul to propose Ricoeur’s thf the philosophy o capable human beingoductive offers approach a pric of to the dialect experience, imagination and self-representationent of in the developm human identity. Ricoeur’s philosophicale profound anthropology reveals th and constitutive intertwining imagination, of the mind and body, reality and self-representationnteraction, and social relationition. i and recogn
Chapter 11, “Imageation and in Represent Historical Knowledge”, presents a paperAmerican published International Journal in theof Social Science, in 2017 (see Busacchi Proceeding 2017a). onwards from a survey of the current state of the debateation onin thethe function of represent philosophy of history, this emological contribution investigates the epist question of representation inrect historical point knowledge from an indi of view. It does not aim at a ldirect relationships analysis of the dialectica between (a) rhetorical-narrative constructionf and history the writing (M. o de Certeau, H. White); (b) hermeneutics historical and the epistemology of knowledge (P. Ricoeur); (c) explanationWright, and understanding (von Ricoeur); (d) meaning, reference truth in historicalentation and repres (Ankersmit). Instead, the questioniew of is reset from the point of v representation as a mechanism/dynamism of mind and memory, as a linguistic instrument, and asent an isinstrument to of knowing. The int explore how the imaginative-representativeosophy of function of the phil history can contribute to “solving” reality the as duplicity of historical something that has “passed”, in is the no-longer-existing, past but existed as something “yet-existing”. grasp In this the way, it may be possible to crux, the point of origin of theplanation, epistemological problems of ex understanding and representation in historical knowledge.
Finally, Chapter 12, titled “JusticePhilosophy Through Recognition: From to Action”, reconsiders the analysist the Asian proposed with talk given a Conference on Ethics, Philosophy Religion, 2016Kobe, (ACERP2016), & Japan, 31 March–3 April (see Busacchiissues 2016c; 2018, 75–82). The concerning recognition and mutual recognition have been largely discussed at allentifically levels, non-sci and in philosophy, scientifically, in psychology, in sociology, inl, political theory, within ethica communitarian, interculturalre and is still political debates etc. But the much to do in reflecting upon allon, the implications of recogniti particularly considering theth deep directions relationship that flows in bo between social mutual recognitione and personal emancipation. Th question of precisely “what the political psychological, sociological and implications” are is still open,oeur but and with Taylor, Habermas, Ric Action, Intersubjectivity and9 Narrative Identity
Honneth we may definitely understanduld be how and why recognition co established as a theoretical-practicallisation, social basis for individual rea progress and the strengthening of justice and democracy.
PART I
METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER1
THER ICOEURIANWAY: TOWARDSC ARITICAL HERMENEUTICS FOR THEHUMAN ANDSOCIAL SCIENCES
1.1 Preamble
The central question of this paper of a is linked to the possibility reinterpretation of Paul Ricoeur’sl philosophy by way of critica hermeneutics.“critical” Certainly, determination thispassage of marks a secondary importance in his hermeneuticalressed evolution, which prog from the paradigm of an interpretationis of text, of symbols to the analys to narrative hermeneutics, thenceics of to phenomenological hermeneut the self, and finally to the hermeneuticscognition. of translation and re However, the point of this papere of issuch to asee whether the structur critical hermeneuticsalised may according be genernsic to the intri possibilities of Ricoeur’s hermeneuticse discourse as a unified speculativ and as a philosophical. Hence, procedure criticalmust hermeneutics be clarified in its methodology,and in in its epistemological structure reference to its field of application.hensive, But another, more compre interest underlieshich concerns this study, the role w place of and the philosophy and philosophical workand within the current cultural, particularly interdisciplinary,ilosophy context. in What is the role of ph relation to the enormousf data and amount knowledgeed o by accumulat the sciences today?le “cultural” Is it a simp “scientific” role, or rather a one? Is it possible to conceiveethodology? of critical hermeneutics as a m This study of Ricoeur’s philosophye question aims to find an answer to th of the epistemological constitutionences of the human and social sci without taking a specific positionnd on his speculative content a arguments. Ricoeur’s work is examined a from this perspective, as potential general model for theoreticalifically, for research and, more spec the human sciences. It is an analysisic interests, free from specific themat and from speculativelygled positions. an The Ricoeurian Way 13
1.2 What is Critical Hermeneutics?
The diversification of knowledge around the human being in the contemporary sciences a great has increase provokedty of in the complexi universe of discourse around lem the that subject. It constitutes a prob Ricoeur identified the 1960s. in I write “problem”pite all of because, des this rich knowledge that “perhaps possible for “tothe first time”, makes it encompass in a single questionf thehuman problem of the unification o discourse”, no one has yet beend synthesis. able to elaborate such a unifie (“A modern Leibnizition with and the capacity amb would to achieve it have to be an accomplished mathematician,a critic a universal exegete, versed in several of the arts,ur and 1970, 3– a good psychoanalyst”; Ricoe 4).
Ricoeur never considered himself if the “a Leibniz” of our times, even dimensions of his work are trulys long exceptional. and Actually, with hi winding route of multiple hermeneuticonsiderable detours, he traverses a c part of human knowledge: from phenomenologyd of the voluntary an involuntary, to empirical psychologymbols; and the hermeneutics of sy from history to psychoanalysis;cs and from the structuralism to linguisti philosophy of language and action;heory; fromfrom rhetoric to narrative t literature to science; from anthropologicalscience; philosophy to neuro from biblical exegesis to religion; to practical from theoretical philosophy philosophy; from sociology andh. anthropology His to law; and so fort ambition to co-philosophise,spiration to ues,engage his and a in the dialog interdisciplinarys reflexive character featl, amongof clearly hi other revea elements and aspectsrch, a of strategy his reseansive for a comprehe approach to overcoming the disciplinarydge. In fragmentation of knowle this sense, he considers collegialilosophers work between scholars and ph of central importance. Througha his that work, Ricoeur models the ide philosophy may play the role ofplateau a ofmediatory discipline on the challenges within sight of the. reunification By its of human knowledge theoretical richness and depth,y and philosophy a reveals a flexibilit capacity to operate transversely,nes do not qualities that other discipli have. Ricoeur offers an understandingl of critical of how great the potentia hermeneutics is as a methodology and and epistemology for the human social sciences.
However, there aretic some aspects problema toonsidering resolve before c this a definitive thesis. Firstly,d the Ricoeur has always underline fragmentary character of his research,is auto- somehow “dispersed” in h understanding.Oneself as Another In (1990), he tried to use the reunifying 14 Chapter 1 thematic key of a phenomenologicalt this hermeneutics is a of the self. Bu solution of a “thematic” kind:rocedural neither a methodological nor a p solution, nor anone. epistemological Therefore,icient it is at not all. suff Secondly, the conceptcal hermeneutics” of “critindable seems understa and useful only if coordinatedroaches with two other hermeneutical app with which it was originallyharacterised in dialectic. This notion, which c K. O. Apel’s hermeneutical work,of as well as Habermas’ critique ideology, is linked. to the Frankfurt School
Javier RecasHacia Bayón’suna hermenéutica crítica (2006) offers a good perspective fromacterise which tocritical charn effect, hermeneutics. he I tries to generalise the concept,ve in opening up a broader perspecti working with the ideas of Gadamer,ty, Habermas, Apel, Vattimo, Ror Derrida and Ricoeur.ders certain Bayón consi productiveences, consequ comparing theires; respective but he too theori mostlyon Apel’s focuses and Habermas’es. perspectiv He underlines how,
for Apel as well , as hermeneutics for Habermascannot remain mere a description ofGadamerian the felt, asmode ther does, it has but to rathe mediate these results with thenterests critical auto-cognition of the i underlining comprehension. […] We may characterise Apel and Habermas’ criticals through hermeneutic the fundamentaleristics charact which constitute the essence of its detachment from Gadamer and ontologicalcs hermeneuti (Bayón 2006, 193).
Effectively, it is possible s to to consider be an critical hermeneutics a extensive articulation of ontological way, its hermeneutics, but in this theoretical potential to be egeneralised and as an as a universal procedur epistemology is e condemned its strength, to loslue. meaning, and va Furthermore, its “genesis” iss overmore theclosely connected to quarrel methods of the social sciencesion, than as over John philosophical speculat Brookshire CriticalThompson’s Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jürgen Habermas (1981) shows. Through a comparative approach to Wittgenstein, Ricoeurly and Habermas, Thompson not on reveals the underlying structurallisation difficulties of of the conceptua action, of interpretation ases), methodology and of a (for the social scienc theorisation of reference andical truth aspects (which are some of the crit of Wittgenstein, Ricoeur and Habermas’ly), but in philosophies, respective seeking to differentiate considerationsdural and an of what must be a proce epistemic structure in the naturalces, and sciences in and in social scien pursuing a specificodel for procedural the sociale proposes m sciences, a h critical-linguistic hermeneutical three rereading and readdressing of philosophers’ theories and theirons. respective problems and soluti The Ricoeurian Way 15
Language is a key concept and aresearch central domain of analysis and in his study. Following the differentein, Ricoeur, perspectives of Wittgenst and Habermas, ithat becomes this research clearnvolved t is directly in i the epistemologicalin various question ways. In fact,
Ricoeur views languageum of objectification as a medins and assig hermeneutics the task of unfoldingh are the dimensions of being whic expressed in, andhe semantic disclosed structure by,ls and t texts. of symbo Habermas conceives of languageting as the that locus of ideology, sugges the distortions effected byised the exercise through a of power can be critic reconstruction ons of the of speech. presuppositi […]dinary Whereas or language philosopherseat this tend field toground as tr the of ultimate inquiry, both Ricoeuras view and it asHaberm a whichregion in through the end it must surpass 214). (Thompson 1983,
Bayón’s view and theoreticalically, approach it is is different; epistemolog weaker than Thompson’s. perspective But thisoffersonstructing help in rec and understanding Ricoeur’s neuticsattempt into profile a critical herme dialectic between Gadamer’s hermeneuticsmas’ of tradition and Haber critique of ideology. In fact,oeur’s he uses essay more than any others Ric “Herméneutique et critique desnFrom idéologies” (1973, republished i Text to Action, 1986). Unfortunately and unreasonably, this central passage of Ricoeur’s discourse n on critical hermeneutics has bee underestimated or even disregarded.n his As David M. Kaplan writes i remarkableRicoeur’s study Critical on Theory (2003): “the critical dimension in Ricoeur’s works hashe been generally overlooked in t secondary literature. Very islittle conception attention has been given to h of the relationship between hermeneuticsis theories and critical theory, h of ideology and utopia, and theof society”normative basis for a critique (Kaplan 2003, 2).
1.3 Between Hermeneutics and Critique of Ideology
Although Ricoeur did not take Gadamerpart in the tense debate between and Habermas, Hermeneutik collected und Ideologiekritik in (1971), neither did he follow it as a distantque et observer. His “Herméneuti critique des ideologies”, demonstratest, and his his active interest in i intention to carefully checks the in order various to positions and argument find a position of synthesis andled mediation. theory This middle-way-ang is precisely how Ricoeur conceivesa theory of “critical hermeneutics”, that is intendedeen to interpretative mediate betwsed on work (polari tradition, historicity andised authority), on anti- and critical work (polar 16 Chapter 1 ideological issues). Certainly,bermas’ Ricoeur finds in Gadamer and Ha dialectical exchange some importantile a elements from which to prof third hermeneuticalill not way, simply which ”be but w a “middle will way constitute a (third) dialectical Habermas’ “bridge”. In fact, Gadamer and debate underwent an evolution,um as to Gadamer the reveals in his addend 1972 editionTruth and Method of , underscoring what was contemporary hermeneutics’methodological evolution. The reference to his disputation with Habermas is clear, as is thebermas’ impact of this dialogue on Ha research around the logic of workthe social in the sciences. If Gadamer’s sixties marked an important turninge of point for Ricoeur’s practic philosophy as a reflexive phenomenology a (but, after Gadamer, as reflexive-phenomenological hermeneutics),en Habermas’ ement th achiev ofcritical a philosophy, as an alternative tocritical the Frankfurt School’s theory, further impacted Ricoeur. Inan reality, a narrow correspondence c be found between Ricoeur’s use ofe psychoanalysis as a productiv example for the humanities, asstemology a discipline with a bifacial epi (with a register of force and amas’ register of meaning), and Haber modelling of critical philosophyocedure as anto emancipatory critical pr work at a personal and socialhe level level as of psychoanalysis does at t psychological therapy. Withouthe the Gadamer-Habermas debate of t seventies, it would be difficultface to in understand Ricoeur’s about- criticising Freudian psychoanalysis, previously condemned as an imbalanced, weak science unablemological to coordinate its double episte register through its biologistic,ychoanalysis theoretical view. In fact, ps plays an important role in the ectlyGadamer-Habermas or debate, and dir indirectly in the redetermination natural of and the difference between the the human sciences, and of what e the social sciences must be. Th hermeneutics of Freudian psychoanalysis,plines and as well as other disci theories (such as history, and, prompts the theories of text and action) Ricoeur to develop a methodological the idea of ical and epistemolog model transversallyexplanation disposed andunderstanding between. This model is preciselynted in his impleme criticals, which hermeneutic comprise not only whole, a philosophical but also- an analytical interpretative procedure.
Gadamer’s re-actualisation ofradition” the concept of “authority” and “t constitutes hisnilateral, reaction to universalisticralisation the u of cent “objectivity” as a paradigmaticositivism term for all the sciences, as p taught. Not only does this perspectivecity, which deny is the role of histori central in the humanities (sincee characteristic historicity is the constitutiv of the human being), but it alsoion, fails as well to as recognise that tradit prejudice, offers a possible denies way of knowledge.any Unilaterally, it The Ricoeurian Way 17 articulation and differentiationsciences of the sciences (only natural should be considered sciences).cal Habermastheory too develops his criti by targeting positivism. ThisKnowledge becomes and clear in his work Interest (1968). But, in fact, this book was realised after a decade of research and dispute around and to against the positivist approach sociology. Habermas has been one of the protagonists of the Positivismusstreit. In a 1961 conference in Tubing, he represented – along with Theodor W. Adorno – the Frankfurtthe School’s perspective on social sciences, opposing thel Popper neo-positivist and perspective of Kar Hans Albert (see Adorno, Poppered et a al. 1969). He counter-propos critical epistemologydialectic – and characterised founded on the as concept of “human interest” –emology, in opposition to positivist epist definedanalytic as. At the time, the concept of human interest was central in Habermas’ theorisation. He sing used this same concept in critici Gadamer, for whom the root of misunderstandingracter of the specific cha the human and social sciences liesf the in a lack of understanding o centrality of historical knowledge.point does For Habermas, the critical not lie in this lack of a sensein ideologically- of historicity, but rather with determined distortions, which ific, occur under the influence of spec variable humanpositive interests. intentions Onlytion may for emancipa help a philosophy formed as a critical social theory and as a critical science to operate“sciences” properly do) (as and(as productively “critique” does). In pursuingphilosophy the intention of emancipation, a may be exercised as an auto-reflexive whereas a critique of the sciences, critical social science mayl be distortions exercised asin a critique of socia communication and kind action, of social or. as psychoanalysis a
Inserting himself into this recognise debate, Ricoeur, a firstly, does not narrow connection between psychoanalysis. He and critical sociology speaks reflexively of a parallelism: between, between the two disciplines from one side, the ideological ation mechanisms of distorted communic which correspond to the social, unconscious; the and, from the other unconscious psychological mechanisms level. which work on a subjective However, beyond this parallelism,procedure, he recognises that a similar wedged between explanation andcritical understanding, must work within sociology in order to obtainwhile a critical at the diagnosis of ideology, same time facilitating theirques critical Habermas’ dissolution. But he criti proposal for not advancing a theoreticald way through which woul transpose explanatoryermeneutic and meta-hschemaalysis from psychoan to ideology. It is important tor and underline here that both Ricoeu Habermas (as well as Gadamer),eudian share a similar re-reading of Fr psychoanalysisneutics”. as a “depth It herme isof fromview this that point 18 Chapter 1 all parallelisms are possible;es possible and, then, that somehow it becom to exercise Freud’se of distorted theory as communication. abermason H may connect psycho-physiological the distortion of communication to ideological and social distortiontics; of so, communication via hermeneu too, may Ricoeur consider someation theoretical since, aspects of this oper generally, he recognisesect Habermas’ as corrhermeneuticalnsposition tra of psychoanalysis.
In fact,Freud and in Philosophy (1965), Ricoeurnsiders reco Freudian psychoanalysis as discipline a hermeneutical or,lly, more as specifica a discipline that has a substantial In this connection with hermeneutics. essay, he reads psychoanalysisexpérience-limite because as of an the explicative forcee “reconstruction” connected tomitive th of the “pri scene”. In order cause to understand of a certain the symptom, it is necessary toreason explain; and it its is within this explanatory passage that the meta-psychologicaltus effectivelyonditions appara tackles of the c the possibility of explications closer and reconstruction. to Ricoeur seem Habermas because he seems to accept his re-reading of the three psychoanalytical apparatusested of to ego, the id, and superego as connec communicative sphereressive by theintermediation proggue of dialo (through which neurosis is re-conducted). However, to the reflexive sphere he counter-poses Habermas’ to (Gadamer perspective and)ferent the dif epistemological perspectivesd of to a be discipline which is considere founded “energetically”meneutically” and “her (becausealysis psychoan works with an explicativecomprehensive and as register). the This i central Freud thesis and Philosophy of , and marks a peculiar key of Ricoeur’s interpretation ofermeneutics. Freud’s psychoanalysis as a depth h The only major difference isys that, the role for Ricoeur, of this thesis pla a generalised multi-epistemological procedure theorisation and presents a that can be consideredal model fora gener critical(in contrast philosophy to Habermas) andnd for social the human sciencesontrast a (again, to in c Habermas). This so-called “theory the core of the hermeneutic arc” forms of Ricoeur’s critical hermeneutics,nctioning where is the example of its fu discoverable within Ricoeur’sn general philosophy itself if considered i terms, which is to say, in terms and of a general model of analysis interpretation, of the diagnosisthe construction and exercise of criticism, of of speculations and theorisations,, but and so on. More analytically following another “logic” of discourse,coeur’s David Kaplan resumes Ri relation with the hermeneuticsitique, of tradition and the ideology cr respectively indicatingitical aspects four for crlan, both. For Kap Gadamer’s hermeneutics: (1) “substituteas the discourse for dialogue model of communicative understanding”vercome (Kaplan 2003, 38); (2) “o The Ricoeurian Way 19 the dichotomy between explanation account and understanding in order to for our capacityIbidem for); (3) criticism” consider ( that “the world of the text, the referential dimension a potentially opened for the reader, contains subversive force in the imagination”at “a (39); and (4) consider th thematic connection exists betweentivity the in transformation of subjec interpretation of and false the consciousness” critiqueIbidem). With ( regard to Habermas’ critical theory,quent Ricoeur offers these subse remarks: (1) “theeory Habermasian of interests Heideggerian th function like existentiales. As quasi-transcendentalher empirically categories they are neit justifiable nor theoreticallyIbidem); (2) “the distinctionposited” ( between an interest in emancipation to the interest in communication is illegitimate” (40); “the practicallogy is identical task of the critique of ideo to the goal of hermeneutics: toon enlarge and and restore communicati self-understanding”Ibidem); and (4) ( “no antinomy exists between the prior consensus to which we belongom in andan an anticipation of freed ideal of unconstrained communication, or between an ontology of understandingeschatology and of freedom an” (41).
1.4 Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy as an Interdisciplinary Procedure
Without a doubt, Ricoeur’s workic, must for be if defined as non-systemat it is true that he conductedrsubjectivity his research with as the idea of inte the essential character(see Ricoeur of truth1970),ore positing and theref philosophical work as the communitarianhen it work of philosophers, t must also be true that the thematici.e. fragmentation of his work ( voluntary and involuntary, finitudel, and guilt, symbolism of evi unconscious, discourse, text,recognition), action, narrative, self, memory, as well as his evolutionaryence to different refers, schools methodologie and traditions lism, (such phenomenology, as spiritua of philosophy reflection, hermeneutics),heterogeneous together form his philosophy into a and non-unifiede open are scholars whole. Thercoeur’s that consider Ri work rhapsodical, strong in yethis weakreflexive as specific application, a comprehensive philosophy andhere general is methodology. For them, t no methodology. Ricoeur himself recognised the prominence of fragmentation in his enterprise,ity. He as also opposed to synthesis and un has underlined how the differentiation,ichment of specialisation, and enr disciplines and knowledge not for only the constitutes a real challenge human being, but, actually, hasilosophical consistently transformed the ph work in its nature andAutobiographie approach. intellectuelle, heIn his 20 Chapter 1 explicitly declares that philosophyillennial dies if it interrupts its m dialogue with the sciences (whetheriences ormathematics, the natural sc human sciences; see Ricoeur 1995,lete, 62). In our own times, a comp comprehensive synthesis of all for of justhuman knowledge is impossible one man, as weFreud read and Philosophy in . Thus, Ricoeur’s interdisciplinary work, hisengagement sense in of collegiality, and his constant dialogue must be interpretedate as a coherent and deliber response to this state of things.xplosion”, The fragmentation, of or even “e his area of research is an inescapable,e, which “structural” consequenc does not necessarilyrole of weaken philosophy. In fact, themany ways, in interdisciplinary work is becomingsential more and more central and es among the sciences, sometimes pressingop in them to evolve and devel terms of problematisation, approach, Within methodology and procedure. such a context, philosophy maybut play first, a central, it mediatory role; must evolve from its own fragmentationnceptions, in different schools, co procedures and sooeuvre on. The of Ricoeur entirethe sum represents of his diagnosis, as well as hisproaches, choice in and selecting questions, ap ways to treat and solve problems.
Stephen H. Clark is right in saying that Ricoeur develops a “comprehensive philosophy”,sciplinary and that he is “a genuinely interdi thinker […] always addressingon himself in hand attentively to the questi with a courteous rigour” (Clarktionality 1990, 1), and that “his is a ra genuinely inclusive, kinetic,he Socratic in constant internal evolution: t inheritancesitive in its form” most po (4).
During an international symposiumy in Granada in 1987, he clearl described the problematic ofuction a speculative as an or scientific constr objective impossibility becauseost- of our times, which he calls “p Hegelian”: an era of non-synthesis, of “blessed without a system, or an era systematicness”coeur 1991, (see Ri 26–42).
Now it becomes possible, as wellconsider as interesting and useful, to what elements may be generalisedhether in Ricoeur’s philosophy, and w there is any possibility of synthesisingethodology his work in terms of m and approach. We find encouragingcal the central function of criti hermeneutics in Ricoeur’sOneself enterprise, as Another to his attempt in reorganise and readdress his worke in a more unified way, and th recurrences of ndcertain procedural technicalanalysis aspects a ofand his his “speculativeequently style”, summarised. as subs
The Ricoeurian Way 21
From the non-philosophical to the philosophical. The first point that seems to be typical in Ricoeur’sf methodology is the beginning o speculative reflectionnon-philosophical from aophical or a pre-philos point of departure.of “non-philosophical” The idea implications. has various Primarily, Ricoeur makes referencecal and to the spheres of the empiri symbolical; essentially, to(applied the sphere to of applied hermeneutics interpretationThe Symbolic of symbolsof Evil, 1960], [ to psychoanalysis [Freud and Philosophy], and to L’Herméneutique religion biblique [ , 2001]). Secondly, he applies philosophyot as a to the social sphere, n sociology of a particular kind,ngaged but as a practical philosophy e toward and interested in society.y operates In the same manner, philosoph in relation to politics,Le Juste, justice 1995;Le Juste 2 , and law (see, 2001). Thirdly,on-philosophical” he treats the “n aux as the domain frontières de la philosophie (as one of his collection of articles is subtitled inLectures III, 1994), defining it as the domain of literary and cultural projects, where philosophy isction enriched and by the exercise of refle (again) hermeneutics (see, forOneself example,as the interlude within Another). Finally, the non-philosophicalre dimension represents the sphe of all non-philosophical disciplines,implication above is all sciences. This already evident in Ricoeur’sThe Voluntary first and the speculative work, Involuntary (1950), where he thematises Freudian psychoanalysis, as well as empirical psychology. As Stephenhostility Clark to writes, “there is no scientific fact but rather a series diagnostic of relation towards it: a complex antinomies are established and the between intentional analysis data of the empiricist and objectiviste., the subject] sciences. The cogito [i. can only be known through the outward (Clark detour of interpretation” 1990, 22–23). OtherFreud examples and Philosophy, includededicated to psychoanalysis;The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays on Hermeneutics (1969), dedicated to structuralismThe Rule of and psychoanalysis; Metaphor. Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning (1975), a philosophical study betweenbook linguistics of and rhetoric; a 1998 dialogues with neurobiologistCe qui nous Jean-Pierrefait Changeux, penser. La Nature et la Règle (1998);Memory, History, Forgetting (2000), a vast philosophical study inking dialectic around with historians and wor historiography;The Course of Recognition and (2004), in which Ricoeur’s work is developed in dialectic ther with cultural anthropology and o disciplines.
Between theory and praxis. Another typicalrian way Ricoeu of spreading and developing speculative research is through a multi-levelled argumentation disposed accordings, levels to different discursive degree and registers. Ricoeur’s dynamiclan to passage the from the theoretical p 22 Chapter 1 practical plan is intertwinedt is with because this disposition. Clearly, i there is a general “disciplineplex of andmethod” that a similarly com dynamic operationOneself is as Another possible, reveals as by providing an example of a general synthesis of Ricoeur’s philosophy and methodology. In fact, through its ten studies, a hermeneutical phenomenology develops a philosophym a of the self progressing fro linguistic level of analysiseculative- to a pragmatic one, thence to a sp anthropologicallly, level, from and, a practical-ethicalevel fina to a l juridico-political level.is The theoretically result is never a discourse that and practically juxtaposed or well mixed, as because, constitutively as dynamically, Ricoeur’s discoursele to is a transversal discourse, ab articulate theoretical analysis a practical and interpretation onto or into dimension. Moreover,ally configured it is general practice”,as a “theoretic like the sciences2003). (see Therefore, Ricoeurneutics critical herme operates as an applied criticalheoretical theory, as well as a practico-t discipline. In Ricoeur’s work,rdisciplinary critical hermeneutics is an inte theoretical practice,criptive, with interpretative a flexive des and re methodology.
Between conflict and mediation. As a third general characterisation of Ricoeur’s approach, it shouldis be tendency underlined how consistent is h to be attractedt by the conflict same time, and,mediation. to a exercise This maintenance of tension is in evidentThe everywhere: for example, Conflict of Interpretations, where “in an impressive variety of contexts, […] the process of understandingthe involves a double movement of recovery of meaning and of an exercisesing in demystification: oppo perspectives which complement each other in an open-ended and productive contest” (Clark 1990, 3).
However, this discourse does nots necessarily mean that Ricoeur’ philosophy is a philosophy oft, “happy is conflict, ends”. At its core, in fac which explains the necessity sof focused a mediatory work. For Ricoeur i on theoretical,ative practical, and ideologicals, specul though conflict with a temperate, equitable,approach which rationalrebalancing is oriented to and resolving isproblems. correct Clarkin writing that:
Ricoeur never pickse of the a fight. most impressive ofOn his work traits is his respectful, almost grateful,there is nothing assimilation of criticism: in his work remotely comparableearle. to Derrida’s At altercation with S times we may lament the absence, but of ‘blistering these refutations’ […] would run counterthat to Ricoeur’s the valuesal whole enterprise intellectu seeks to promote: humility,y” mutual (4). respect, the truth of charit