1.
Nature of the
Life of Meaning in Time and our Life in Meaning in Time
Introduction
Written text is
fundamental to human communication, second only to spoken word. Text enables us
to take history forward. It makes us feel proud of our past and allows us to
think of a better future. A text is more than its component words. Texts have
influenced minds, raised questions, answered some and left many unanswered. it
has caused revolutions. ‘What changes the world’ is what we make out of the
text in and for our times- that is, its meaning in time. Readers come and go,
but texts continue to influence and change the world. Therefore, study of text
and its meaning are extremely important in understanding our life and its
meaning in the present world.
Synchronic Language and
Diachronic Text
Our
world is composed of many codes. Language is the most complex code. We need this
code to speak, write and understand. Any realization of language is only a disclosure or parole of the treasury of the code of language. This code of
language is synchronic. It is static and doesn’t have complexities of growth,
and is ‘of a time’. It was Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), a Swiss linguist,
who proposed that language as a system of signs should be studied as a complete
system at any given point in time. This implies that language is synchronic-
‘of a time’.
On
the contrary, a literary text is diachronic. It is an anti-realistic
perspective. Diachrony suggests changes in meaning over time. Meaning begins to
move across time. The text doesn’t cling to the author’s bosom. It drifts away
from the writer. This is called distanciation.
Distanciation
In
the hermeneutics of Paul
Ricoeur (1913-2005), the transition from speaking to
writing is marked by what can be called ‘alienation’ or ‘distanciation’ (Verfremdung). The realization of
discourse in writing distances the text from its context of spoken discourse. During
this transition, the original context of the discourse vanishes. The text takes
on a whole new meaning and is no longer bound by its original writer. The text
is distanced or alienated from the author. It is now ready for the reader to
read and interpret.
This distanciation is
the first step in the diachronic journey of the text. Text leaves its origin
and ground and moves away from the author. This can be equated to Individuation in Developmental
Psychology, proposed by Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961). The text undergoes a sort
of diachronic individuation. The text
is now free to move in time and space. There are no limits as to where to go or
how far to go.
In Ricoeurian
hermeneutics, distanciation is not looked at negatively as something that needs
to be overcome. On the contrary, distanciation turns out to be the very
condition of meaning making because it paves the way for ‘Semantic Autonomy’. Semantic
Autonomy is nothing but the fact that through the act of writing, the text is
freed from the ‘intention of the author’. Against this backdrop of
distanciation, ‘Semantic Autonomy’ is inbuilt in the text, i.e., the reader is
absent from the act of writing; the writer is absent from the act of reading
[death of the author].
Thus freed, the text
becomes a ‘projected world’ with a career in time. It has a diachronic life of
its own. Hermeneutics focuses on this diachronic life. Literary text is an
‘outward seeker’ looking for readers of all times. It sets out on a diachronic
journey in time and space. It is disposed with a quality namely, ‘universality
of address’. It is ready for uptake anywhere in the world. For Ricoeur destination
of the text is readers’ appropriation - self understanding through dialogue
with the text which is a form of the other. Text is a complexified other.
Appropriation is making the other myself, that is, ‘Otherness’ into ‘own-ness’.
Hermeneutics deals with this appropriation- self understanding through
dialogue. It happens across problematic zones of liminality.
Liminality
If
I am a realist reader, I go back to the author’s time and space to capture the
authorial meaning. The spatiotemporal gap does not count for a realist. One is
a contemporary of all times in realist reading. It is an unproblematic travel
according to realist hermeneutics. But Ricoeur says such an unproblematic
passage is not possible. For him, a reader in the present understands a text of
the past with all the ‘receptions’ it
gathered during the gap between past and present.
Reception History
Hans Robert Jauss
(1921-1997) spoke of reception history (Rezeptions Geschichte) of a text. “Literature
and art only obtain a history that has the character of a process when the
succession of works is mediated not only through the producing subject but also
through the consuming subject—through the interaction of author and public.” We
receive a text with a history and all the meanings it accumulated during the
journey through time and space. Ricoeur says, when you read it, you read it
with all its history and the diachronic journey it made. The process of
reading, for reception theory, is always a dynamic one, a complex movement.
All readers have an
age, history, era and situation in an epoch, which is named a horizon. A horizon of expectation (Prejudice for Gadamer: 1900-2002) is
what we can see within a horizon. It is within a horizon of expectations that Reception
takes place. Time is a continuum of receptions in horizons of expectation.
Surplus Meaning
Text goes through
receptions through generations of horizons of expectations. Text has a meaning,
excess/more than what it had at its birth, because it travels in time gathering
meaning. The excess meaning a text acquires during its diachronic journey
across time is called Surplus Meaning.
This means, text does
not remain disembodied in a vacuumized zone, available for uniform reading.
Text travelling through history is historicized in reception. No text is complete
in the past. Meaning is not closed and complete in the past but open in its
future. Meaning of a text is the future of the text. It is not a finished fact,
but an unfolding fate. It comes to my horizon as a sedimentation of a complex
reception history that it incurs during its diachronic journey. The sum total
of all these is the meaning of the text.
Unfolding Meaning
Ricoeur
and Gadamer speak of us being implicated into unfolding meaning in an
unconcluded world where last word is not said about anything. Jauss says, “A
literary text is not an object that stands by itself and offers the same face
to each reader in each period.” Neither writer nor reader has the privilege of
a final meaning. Meaning is on an unfolding trajectory in contemporary literary
theory. This view is anti-theological and sponsors multiple readings and
meanings. It is open to the future. Ricoeur’s
surplus meaning is a sign of ever unfolding evolutionary meaning on a journey
towards the Omega point in the future.
Reflection
“The sense of a text is
not behind the text, but in front of it,” says Ricoeur. Such an attitude to
written text would revolutionize one’s perspective. Wherever tradition or faith
has declared a dead end to meaning making and interpretation, there was bloodshed.
When meaning is closed, tolerance vanishes. Self righteousness looms in the
world, which in turn brings in wars to eliminate the ‘difference’. An open
attitude to meaning would ensure cohabitation of ‘difference’ in a colourful, multi faced and peace promoting
world.
As we are being pulled
into the future, into an ever unfolding, ever complexified world of meaning,
there needs to be an air of magnanimity to breath and elixir of tolerance to
quench our thirst with. If humanity has to coexist, we need to turn and see
that there is truth in our neighbor too. Such an atmosphere of mutual human trust
will blossom only when we accept that meaning is not exclusive, but inclusive.
Conclusion
“Nothing conclusive has
yet taken place in the world; the ultimate word of the world and about the
world has not yet been spoken; the world is open and free; everything is still
in the future and will always be in the future,” says Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975).
Meaning is not closed in the past, but is open to the future. There is no
degradation, but expansion, addition and increase of meaning. Act of reading is
never a distortion. Thus irrespective of changing readers, the text unfolds its
meaning into a life of ever increasing spectrum of meaning, enriching the
horizons of our lives with prosperous texts of ever blooming realizations.