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.
