ASSIGNMENT

Ques-) What are the various challenges and problems faced

in interpreting a text?

Ans-)
INTRODUCTION:
Students of political theory do not attempt to decode and interpret the
meaning of messages of divine origin. But we do, of necessity, attempt to
understand messages sent to us by long-dead and all-too-human thinkers
whose works we read and ponder and mine for meaning. Thus, political theory
is in important ways a backward-looking enterprise. A very considerable part of
its subject-matter is its own history, which consists of classic works from Plato
onward. But there is more than one way to read, interpret, and understand the
works that comprise the canon –changing and contested as it is – of political
theory. It tells us something about the variety and diversity of approaches to
the interpretation of texts in political theory. Interpretation is not an option
but a necessity for the meaning-seeking creatures that we are. Throughout to
emphasize two points in particular that not all interpretations are equally valid
or valuable; and that interpretations are rationally criticizable and corrigible.

THE INDISPENSABILITY OF INTERPRETATION:

Interpretation comes with the territory of being human. It is an activity from
which humans cannot escape. Our prehistoric ancestors interpreted the
meaning of animal entrails, omens and other signs that might make their world
more intelligible and perhaps portend their future. They, like modern
meteorologists, attempted to forecast the weather by looking at clouds and
observing the behaviour of birds and other creatures. With the coming of
literacy came the primacy of the written over the spoken word. Religious
people, then as now, interpret the meaning of sacred scripture. Judges,
lawyers and ordinary citizens read and interpret constitutions and other texts.
And students of political theory read – and adjudicate among rival
interpretations of texts in political theory. All interpretation implies, and
originates in, some vantage point or standpoint. Every interpretation, in short,
implies an interest that provides the ground for and possibility of an
interpretation – a standpoint from which inquiry can begin and interpretation
proceed. These interests are, moreover, multiple and varied. What one’s
guiding interests might be – and how one goes about answering to them – is as
likely as not to depend on the interpretive ‘school’ to which one belongs.

‘SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION’:
There are today a number of influential schools of, or approaches to,
interpretation. Each takes a distinctive approach to the history of political
thought, and each is highly critical of the others. Disputes between and among
these schools are heated and often protracted. Here are a brief thumbnail
sketches of several approaches to interpretation.

 Marxian Interpretation:-
The Marxian approach to textual interpretation considers the legitimization
and perpetuation of class differences as the point and purpose of any
mainstream ideology. Conventional ideas obscure the damning reality of class
inequalities and paint false pictures of society’s fairness and justness. The task
of textual interpretation then is to expose the tawdry reality hidden behind the
rosy façade. The goal is to unravel the fabric of illusion woven by the
mainstream point of view and reveal the true hidden socio-economic reality.
Crawford Brough Macpherson’s ‘The Political Theory of Possessive
Individualism’ (1962) is an important Marxian interpretation that paints Locke
as an extraordinarily clever propagandist for capitalism. Macpherson sees
Locke’s discussion of private property in the Second Treatise — where he
proclaims property as that part of nature which one mixes with one’s own
labour— as a justification of the institution of private property. Macpherson
was apt to work from the particular text to the grand abstraction — from a
passage in Locke to an implicit overarching conception of the political order —
without then submitting this generic abstraction to further interactions with
the complexities of the empirical world. Marxists see all theories as ideological
masks. How and why their own theory must be exempted is not explained (or
explainable). Marxian interpretations also tend to be formulaic and
deterministic seeing ideological trickery every which where.

 Totalitarian Interpretation:-
The rise of fascism and communism prompted investigation into the
philosophical roots of modern totalitarianism. The roots, once one starts
looking, appears to be present everywhere. Plato’s philosopher king,
Machiavelli’s ruthless prince, Hobbes’s all-powerful sovereign and Rousseau’s
all-wise legislator all seem to be precursors to totalitarian rulers of the 20th
century. A prominent representative of this perspective is Karl Popper’s ‘The
Open Society and its Enemies’ (1945). He interprets Hegel’s remark ‘what is
rational is actual and what is actual is rational’ in the “Preface” to the
Philosophy of Right as justifying everything that is now real (or “actual”) exists
by necessity and must thus be reasonable and good (“rational”). Hegel is seen
as giving his philosophical blessing to the proto-totalitarian Prussian state
which existed at the time. A closer look, however, reveals Popper’s
misinterpretation. Hegel uses the word ‘wirklich’ which translates as ‘actual’
and means ‘realised potential’, and not what is “real”, as Popper supposes.
Hegel’s remark would mean: “What is rational is that which fully actualizes its
potential; and that which fully actualizes its potential is rational.” It is then is
not the sinister justification of everything that is real (one of which was
totalitarian Prussia). The famous (or infamous) Hegelian statement ... may be
expounded as follows. Since the rise of Christianity the Rational has become
actual; but whereas Christian faith has from the start grasped the religious
aspect of this event (that through the indwelling of the Spirit all is
accomplished) it has been left to secular reality, often indifferent or even
hostile to the Christian faith, to grasp its secular aspect (that through human
action much, if not everything, is forever yet to be accomplished). Only the
existence of these two aspects make the philosophical (instead of merely the
theological) formula true. And only the existence of this truth renders possible
the Hegelian philosophy — the recognition of the rationality in the Actual. The
lesson to be learned from mis-readings such as this is the critical importance of
philosophical (in the considered case, conceptual and linguistic) contexts and
the pitfalls of selective quoting and stitching in order to fit a preset thesis.

 Psychoanalytic Interpretation:-
This approach owes its existence to Sigmund Freud who argued that our
actions are driven by desires and fears we may not be consciously aware of.
One can supply, the approach believes, psychoanalytic interpretations to all
sorts of texts including those of political theory. This treatment has been given
to thinkers like Machiavelli, Burke, Luther and Gandhi. A prominent example of
this approach, however, is Bruce Mazlish’s (1975) James psychoanalytic
interpretation of themes in the work of John Stuart Mill. Mill’s ‘On Liberty'
(1859) is cast as a personal appeal and a declaration of independence from his
father who was exceedingly strict. Mill might not have consciously intended it
but his unconscious desires shaped his work. He also had an illicit affair with a
married woman named Harriet. Given that his mother’s name was also Harriet,
this coincidence fits strikingly with what is known in psychoanalytic theory as
the ‘Oedipus complex’. Unsurprisingly, Mazlish makes the most of it, who
interprets ‘On Liberty’ less as a work of liberal political theory than as a cri de
Coeur and a declaration of personal independence that is more
autobiographical than analytical. Psychoanalytic interpretations, though
occasionally insightful, are speculative, impressionistic and non-falsifiable. The
approach also drives attention away from the text and onto the author which
is hardly the proper method for any attempt at textual interpretation.

 Feminist Interpretation:-
This perspective puts gender issues at the forefront and uses that vantage
point to look at political theory. The general conclusion has been that, to use
Susan Okin’s observation, “the great tradition of political philosophy consists…
of writings by men, for men, and about men”. This neglect has led to Feminist
re-readings and reappraisals of the classic works. The approach began in the
1960’s with an earnest search for heroines and heroes who championed the
cause of women. Figures like Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman and even
men like, Bentham, Mill and Engels were singled out for attention and homage.
A second, angrier and arguably more accurate, phase followed which sought to
expose the misogyny in the works of the greats of political theory including the
ones who had in the first phase been venerated. The social contract was
branded as a fraternal contract and the welfare state, as a patriarchal
institution. The third phase attacked the hitherto civic virtues of men — hunger
for power, competitiveness, rationality. It turned the public/private distinction
on its head and proclaimed the superiority of the private realm of the family to
the public realm of politics. Feminist critics have called for an active and
engaged civic feminism. Such engagement should, however, come after
embarking on a nuanced textual analysis and interpretation of western
political tradition which is yet to come by.

 Straussian Interpretation:-
This approach derives from the work of Leo Strauss who tried to locate the
eternal truth of politics in the works of Plato and other ancient and preliberal
era thinkers. These vigorous works were contrasted with the listless
ruminations of modern liberal thinkers. Strauss bemoaned the weakening of
normative foundations in the face of the violent winds of fanaticism. His
experiences as a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany puts his thought into
context. Having pointed out the crisis, Strauss and his followers attempted to
trace the origins and diagnose the maladies of liberalism, relativism,
historicism and scientism. Solutions were to be found by carefully rereading
and deciphering the real meaning in the texts of the preliberal era. The
Straussian approach involved seeing through the exoteric disguise intended for
the public and decoding the esoteric doctrine embedded between and hidden
behind the lines. This approach relies on some sort of insider’s knowledge
which is available only to the initiated who in turn dismiss the uninitiated as
hopelessly ignorant. Also, it just assumes that the esoteric doctrine does not
correspond to the exoteric doctrine.

 Postmodernist Interpretation:-
Postmodernism emerges out of the failures of grand narratives. It is a diffuse
perspective shared by many different, even disparate, thinkers.
Postmodernism stresses the incoherent and incomprehensible nature of the
world and resists any attempt to find continuity and unity in the human
condition. It also dismisses the idea of progress as merely an advance in one
group’s power to dominate the others. One version of this approach emerging
from Foucault examines the ways in which human beings are normalized, i.e.,
made willing participants in their own subjugation (by power). It involves
rereading texts from the perspective of the present and then realigning and
relocating them according to new axes so as to reveal who contributed to the
subjugation (Hobbes and Rousseau) and who resisted it (Nietzsche).The main
objective … to attack a technique, a form of power which applies itself to
immediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, marks him by his
own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on
him which he must recognize and which others have to recognize in him. It is a
form of power which makes individuals subjects. Another version made
popular by Derrida aims to deconstruct or expose and criticize the arbitrariness
of claims to truth by examining various binary oppositions or dichotomies such
as knower/known, object/representation, text/interpretation, true/false – a
process that Derrida (1976) calls ‘deconstruction’. What is proclaimed as truth,
including texts, is merely a representation which isn’t any truer or better than
another. As such, all interpretations are necessarily indeterminate.
Deconstruction ... undertakes a double reading, describing the ways in which
lines of argument in the texts it is analyzing call their premises into question,
and using the system of concepts within which a text works to produce
constructs, such as difference and supplement, which challenge the
consistency of that system. The insistence on the indeterminacy of
interpretations is an extremely pessimistic stance that does not advance our
knowledge. But more dangerously, it legitimizes or, at least, is unable to
recognize propaganda and falsehood making it morally and epistemologically
unsatisfactory.

 Cambridge ‘New History’:-

The Cambridge ‘new historians’ see textual interpretation as uncovering the
historically variable problems to which particular philosophers proposed
particular answers and deny that there are eternal problems. Understanding
meaning requires that we understand the problem being addressed. The
classic texts cannot be concerned with our questions and answers, but only
with their own. There is also the further implication that there simply are no
perennial problems in philosophy: there are only individual answers to
individual questions, with as many different answers as there are questions,
and as many different questions as there are questioner. Peter Laslett’s
introduction to his edition of Locke’s ‘Two Treatises of Government’ [1960],
restores the book to its political and historical context. It also shows that the
volume had been written nearly a decade earlier than what was known paving
the way for subsequent reinterpretations of Locke. This method of historical
investigation has been forcefully promoted. Textbook approaches have been
dismissed as insufficiently historical. For the Cambridge historians, political
theory is a form of political action. It is intended to warn, persuade, criticize,
frighten, etc. Political theorists have always engaged in propaganda and
persuasion. Textual interpretation is largely a matter of restoring a text to the
historical context in which it was composed and the questions to which it was
offered as an answer.

CONCLUSION: Pluralistic and Problem-Driven

Interpretation
Thus, we can conclude that any single method won’t suffice to get the answers
we seek. A plurality of approaches which will not encumber us in the range of
questions we can ask is preferable. In adopting this pluralistic approach,
intellectual, political and linguistic contexts have to be kept in mind. But of
course these contexts are varied and multiple, encompassing not only the
context in which a text was written, but also the successive contexts in which it
was received, read, interpreted, criticized, reread, and reinterpreted and
perhaps put to uses very different from those the author intended. Also, to be
remembered is the fact that texts take a life of their own once they are
published. To concentrate solely on what the author intended in a particular
text to the neglect of what other thinkers had to say about said text would not
be helpful always. Interpretative queries are problem-driven. Often, we turn to
texts to clear doubts. These doubts may arise from anywhere but their
interpretative solutions must be justified by stringent scholarly criteria.
Interpretation triangulates between the text and two or more interpretations
of it. And through reinterpretations and reappraisals, the classic works may be
kept alive.

NAME: SANCHI GANGWAR

ROLL NO.: 4552
COURSE: B.A. POL. SC.(H)
YEAR: 3RD SEM: 5TH
PAPER: CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY