[Milton-L] historicism, formalism, etc. (Skulsky)

[jfleming at sfu.ca]

Prof. Skulsky: the case is perhaps clearest with regard to historicist
interpretation. 

The goal of the latter, both old and new, can (I hope) be generalized as
recovering the original understanding of a given text in context. Moreover,
there is, from the historicist point of view, no other way to arrive at an
understanding of such an interpretandum. One cannot just interpret it,
without historicist apparatus, because of the danger of anachronistically
misunderstanding it. (That is, if you like, the whole premise of
historicism.) Instead, one must contextualize -- Jameson's "always
historicize." From historical context, one seeks to derive the parameters of
valid meaning for the primary interpretandum. 

Now the context, from the point of view of interpretative work, consists in
nothing other than a set of interpretanda. Valid understanding of these
determines valid interpretation of the primary interpretandum. But clearly,
the contextual interpretanda are every bit as much in need of
contextualization-historicization as the primary one. Therefore, one would
have to perform the same interpretative operation for the contextual
interpretanda as one hopes to perform, with their help, for the primary. And
so on for whatever context one found for help with the context. This is an
infinite regress. 

The only way to stop it -- on the objectivist logic of historicism -- would
be, as I said before, to get at some point an understanding of historical
interpretanda outside the regress of historicist interpretation. But that
getting is exactly what historicism says is impossible. Thus historicism, by
trying to ensure interpretative validity, succeeds only in deconstructing
it. Again, _in its own terms_. The point is not to show that we can't
understand historical texts, but that historicism cannot give a coherent
account of how, or whether, we do. 

Or so it seems to me. Opposing pigs, poked or otherwise, more than welcome.
JDF 



On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:33:51 -0500 milton-l at lists.richmond.edu wrote:
> James Fleming makes the following negative claim about the accessibility
> of "what a given text means, or is able to mean": 
> 
> "The only way to know that one’s interpretation had reached it [i.e.,
> "what a given text means, etc.] would be by comparison with an
> understanding of the interpretandum just as it is." 
> 
> This is a very ambitious generalization. It purports to cover the whole
> space of candidate methods of validating attempts to reach the meaning
> of a text. No doubt the supporting argument for the generalization will
> be correspondingly elaborate, and require many pages to encompass. But
> on pain of selling us a pig in a poke, Professor Fleming owes us at
> least a usable sketch of the supporting argument.
> 
> One kind of reply will be clearly unacceptable: 
> 
> "If you think you have an alternative to comparison with the
> interpretandum just as it is, pray share it with us! [Embarrassed
> silence from yours truly.] Ah, you haven't any; point proved!" 
> 
> That stratagem would be an attempt to shift the burden of proof, and
> hence a refusal to open the poke and give us a fair glimpse of the pig.
> 
> Another kind of reply would be equally unacceptable:
> 
> "A supporting argument is neither possible nor necessary; the need for
> insight into the alleged Thing in Itself is obvious!"
> 
> In matters of this kind, nothing is obvious.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> 
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> 


James Dougal Fleming
Associate Professor
Department of English
Simon Fraser University
778-782-4713
cell: 604-290-1637

"Not always, nor of necessity, nor for the most part."