Reading and the Other

Reading and ‘the Other’

Sajit M. Mathews

Introduction

Human existence is undeniably interrelated and interdependent. Right from pre-birth stage as ovum and sperm, to post-death stage as food for bacteria, life has to encounter numerous situations, persons, ideas and things. All such encounters necessitate the existence of ‘the other’ if we claim ourselves to be ‘selves’. The extent of this encounter varies from person to person depending on one’s psychological disposition and various social, cultural and other factors. Even for those who have minimum possibilities for actual encounters, literature keeps a wide door open, to ‘the other’ in various ways. As C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) says, “In reading great literature, I become a thousand men and yet remain myself,” while sitting in my reading room.

For a reader, a literary text is something that is outside of him/her. It is written by an author of another time and place having probably a totally different upbringing and mental make-up. The reader has to encounter this totally strange object of consciousness, taking risks about his/her identity as in any other encounter in the world. Here, the text itself is ‘the other’. Thus, reading a text of literature is an encounter of the readers’ self with ‘the other’.

The relationship between self and ‘the other’ is always characterized by distance. In encountering the text which is ‘the other’, reader has to cross this distance. Therefore, reading literature entails problems for the reader and ‘the other’.

Two Equations Between the Reader’s Self and ‘the Other’

1.      Introspection- Introspection says that more of you is inside yourself. Self can know itself by itself, from itself. Here, growth or expansion of identity has to do with self reliance. The agency of self growth is introspection.

2.      Interpretation- Interpretation occurs when there is interaction between two parties. The self knows itself by getting in touch with the other because what is outside of you is also part of you. Interpretation happens on a common ground of dialogue.

Literary theory has nothing to do with introspection as a way to or an agency of reading, because the starting point of experience of literature is an engagement with the text, which is a form of ‘the other’. Reading is an act of dialogue or interpretation entailing ‘the other’. The experience of literature is an example of the growth of self from the other. It has to do with ‘the other’ and its role in reader’s self. Experience of a literary text begins with the engagement with the other.

Fusion of Horizons

Reading is a dialogue between the reader and the text which is ‘the other’. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) maintains that in dialogue we can sometimes achieve fusion of horizons. Horizon is a metaphor for our situation in this world. Fusion of horizons is an event of truth. Our world, comes to presence as the prejudged, the always understood or interpreted. This is truth for us and it is no less truth when we become aware that truth is inseparable from prejudices. In genuine dialogue with the other there is a possibility of risking the very prejudices that make our world and  costitute our truths. Dialogue moves in two directions- ‘back’ towards our pre-understandings and moves ‘forward’ towards achieving a common understandings. This could  be towards agreement or at least toward recognition of exactly what we disagree about and why. This back and forth movement is what Gadamer means by fusion of horizons.

It is the same movement that happens in reading. The alien text engages in a dialogue with the reader. The preunderstandings and pre-knowledge of the reader and the cumulative meanings of the text  enter into a meaningful interaction and a fusion of horizons happens, to reveal truth. New understandings and new meanings emerge out of this interaction, adding to surplus meaning.

Fear of ‘the other’

Literary text is apparently strange or unfamiliar to the reader. This apparent nature breeds fear because ‘the other’ is deemed to be different and strange. So one remains fixated in the familiar. The little ‘me’ is preferred to the alien ‘other’. The limited, comfortable space within is preferred over the ever expanding world outside. According to Wolfgang Iser (1926-2007), we need to step out of the familiar and go into the new and unfamiliar in order to grow.

Object Constancy and Reading

In literary experience, there is a problematic distance between the reader’s self and the other. Only when this distance is bridged, one can enter the unfamiliar other. The courage to do so comes from a concept called ‘object constancy’ in psychology. It is an assurance or trust that a child develops while it is six months to five years old. For a child, mother is the very first object. Even if the mother is physically absent, the child knows that the mother is there. This trust in the mother is called object constancy. That same trust is one’s capacity for dialogue with the other.

            Here, the role of the other (text) is as an agent of expansion of the identity of the reader’s self. The more you read, the more you are connected with yourself because You are ‘the Other’ and more of you is outside of you. Our call in life is to add the other to self, not to isolate. Reading does exactly that, by getting in touch with the other. In the absence of dialogic interpretational skill, one will subtract the other from self leading to exclusivist and extremist world view.

Liminality and the Other

For hermeneutics, when the two different categories meet, there is a space between them where neither is itself. It is the problematic zone of liminality. Interpretation is an exchange of meaning in liminality. Passage through liminality is always problematic. Life is full of limilalities or problematic meeting places like the transition from childhood to adulthood through adolescence. Reader and text are two categories with liminal space between them. Textual interpretation happens in liminality. The engagement of the reader with the text (the other) happens in liminal space. This engagement is not introspection, but interpretation.

Reading and the Other

Every piece of writing is born with a readerly expectation. The Reader is integral to the text as an ontological value. For phenomenology of literature, the ontology of the mode of existence of the text is as an appearance in the consciousness of the reader. A text necessitates a reader. A text as a fete of writing is complete only when it becomes an object of the readers’ consciousness. Prior to reading, text is indeterminate. That is, a scheme of clues, directions, triggers and promptings which expect a reader and is designated as ‘the implied reader’. Implied reader is the ‘act of reading’ that the fete of writing requires (not the historical reader).  It is the act of reading built into the writing, inspisating the writing. In the terminology of reception theory, it is the act of reading that 'concretizes' or ‘realizes’ the literary work. In short, without reading there would be no literary work at all.

But again, there is no grand universal reading provided for all. Everyone reads the same text differently because some of the clues or directions in the implied reader are foregrounded only for particular readers. This emphasizes the fact that one needs muatuality or commonality of ‘horizons’ to read any text. This again implies that no reading is absolute.

Conclusion

We see the application of the same in life. No two people understand a third person uniformly. One’s friend will be another one’s foe and another’s inspiration and so on. The problem of the reader and the other is reflective of the problem of violence and peace. All societies have the problem of ethnic self subtracting self. The more the fear of the other, the more the violence. Exclusive ethnocentric self promotes endless violence. We must orient ourselves as world centric and peace favouring people. Polyphonic magnanimity and dialogic solidarity and bridge building should survive the contracted ethnocentric self that breeds violence. To fear the other is to be afraid of oneself, which is the casualty of adulthood.

Reading as a discipline lets us overcome this difficulty with the other, by offering countless opportunities to get in touch with ‘the other’. Reading teaches us to incorporate the meaning of the other into our horizon. It could help us replace aggressive advocacy of violence with self-respecting inclusivism. Acceptance of the other with its merits and flaws is a virtue reading can promote, without which our world might not see another happy century.