Gadamer's ethics of play : hermeneutics and the other

161 Pages·2010·0.23 MB·English

by  Gadamer

Gadamer’s Ethics of Play
(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)
Monica Vilhauer
L B
EXINGTON OOKS
A division of
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.
(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:28)(cid:11)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:19)

Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction:AnInvitationto“Play” xi
PartI:Gadamer’sHermeneuticProblem 1
1 FacingtheInadequateModelofModernScience 3
PartII:Gadamer’sConceptofPlay:Re-ConceivingtheProcess
ofUnderstanding 23
2 IntroducingtheKeyofPlay 25
3 UnderstandingArt:ThePlayofWorkandSpectator 31
4 ThePlayofInterlocutors:UnderstandingasDialogue 49
PartIII:TheEthicalDimensionsofPlay 73
5 TheEthicalConditionsofDialogicPlay:BetweenIand
Thou 75
6 GenuinePlayinAction:TheModelofthePhilosopher 99
7 TheValueofGenuinePlay:TransitiontoPlayasaGuideto
Life 111
8 PlayandPracticalPhilosophy:PlayasaGuidetoLife 115
PartIV:WhenEthicalConditionsareLacking 129
9 TheProblemofClosedness 133
10 CultivatinganOpeningtoDialogue 139
Bibliography 149
Index 153
AbouttheAuthor 161
vii
Acknowledgments
Thisprojecthas gonethroughanumberofstagesonthewaytoitsfinal
form as a book. I’d like to offer my thanks to a number of teachers,
colleagues,andfriendswhohavesupportedthelifeofthisworkasithas
developed.
First,Ioffergreatthankstothoseteacherswhonurturedandcritiqued
my early work on Gadamer at the New School for Social Research. My
special thanks go to Richard Bernstein, who introduced me to Gadamer
and offered me much needed encouragement while I was writing a first
version of this book. His enthusiasm in the classroom, and his special
abilitytorecognize,andholdincheck,allsignsofsophistry,continuesto
inspire me in my thinking and in my own teaching. I also want to offer
special thanks to Alice Crary and Dmitri Nikulin for their thoughtful
feedbackon myearlydraftofthepresent work,andtheirwillingnessto
offerguidanceanytimeIneededit.
Second,IamgratefultomycolleaguesintheReligionandPhilosophy
DepartmentatRoanokeCollege,whohavesokindlyofferedtheirfriend-
ship and advice to me as I have attempted to learn how to juggle the
three ballsofteaching,research,andservice.MythanksgotoBrentAd-
kins, Jennifer Berenson, Paul Hinlicky, Marwood Larson-Harris, Gerry
McDermott, Eric Rothgery, Ned Wisnefske, and Hans Zorn. I am so
thankful for their collective wisdom, and the openness with which they
have welcomed me into the department. I am also grateful to Roanoke
CollegefortheFacultyScholarAward,whichofferedmethetimeneces-
sarytocompletemymanuscriptandprepareitforpublication.
Third,there isaspecialgroupoffriendsouttherethathasbeenwill-
ing to brainstorm with me, strategize with me, and read and respond to
my writing as the long process of this project has come to a close. I am
indebtedtothesepeoplefortheirthoughtfulness,time,andconversation.
ThankyoutoJakeVilhauer,BrentAdkins,LaurenSwayneBarthold,and
RachelNeithercutforhelpingmetoreachthefinishline!
Ipresentedmanyoftheideasfromchapter3totheGraduateFaculty
Women in Philosophy group at the New School for Social Research in
2004, and am thankful for the thoughtful feedback of that group. I also
want to thank the editors of the Women in Philosophy journal of the New
SchoolforSocialResearchforthepermissiontoreviseandusemyarticle
“UnderstandingthePlayStructureofUnderstanding:TheModelofArt,”
from the 2004–2005 volume of the WIP journal, in this book. I presented
ix
x Acknowledgments
manyoftheideasfrom chapter6totheXVIthInternationalSymposium
oftheOlympicCenterforPhilosophyandCulturein2005,andbenefited
from conversations with participants of the symposium. I thank the edi-
tor of Skepsis for the permission to revise and use parts of my article
“SocraticDialogueandtheEthicalConditionsofKnowledge,”fromSkep-
sis volume26:1–2,2005,inthisbook.Ipresentedideasfromchapters3,4,
and 5 at the Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical
Association in 2008, and the Society for Phenomenology and Existential
Philosophy meeting in 2008. I am thankful for the insightful questions
and comments offered byparticipantsatbothmeetings,especially those
ofLaurenSwayneBarthold,whocommentedonmypaperattheEastern
APAmeeting.IthankDavidPellauer,editorofPhilosophy Today ,forper-
mission to include portions of my SPEP paper in this book, which ap-
peared in volume 53:4 (Winter 2009) of Philosophy Today under the title
“Beyond the ‘Fusion of Horizons’: Gadamer’s Notion of Understanding
as ‘Play.’” Finally, I appreciate the permission that Continuum Interna-
tional Publishing Group has offered me to publish portions of Truth and
Method inthisbook.
I want to thank, also, an anonymous reviewer enlisted by Lexington
Books, whose careful reading of the manuscript and tough criticism has
pushedmetomakethebookbetter.
I am grateful to Jeff Hofmann for creating the cover art for this book
withthesubjectmatterofitscontentsinmind.Iamparticularlythankful
forthesupportandpatienceJeffhasofferedmethroughthestringofall-
consuming deadlines associated with this book project, and I am also
thankful for the enthusiasm with which he took on the project of the
cover art. I am proud that his artistic talent can be displayed across the
frontofthiswork.
Last,Iwanttothank,aboveall,myfamilyfortheirlove,support,and
humor, without which I could not accomplish much at all. They are the
enduring “dialogue partners” of my life. I am forever indebted to them
forteachingmemoreaboutthepracticeofengagedconversation,ethics,
and“openness”thanIcouldeverhopetoextractfromanybook.
Introduction: An Invitation to “Play”
“Couldyoureallypersuade,”hesaid,“ifwedon’tlisten?”
—Plato’sRepublic ,327c
In a wide variety of contexts today, both public and private, we face an
outbreakofconflictanddivisioninwhichthereexistsadisturbingfailure
tounderstandoneanotherinthemostvitalofmatters.Closelypartnered
with this phenomenon is the widespread rejection of all dialogue in
which such an understanding might take place. On the global scene, a
dangerous abandonment of dialogical relations and the turn to force
aboundsbetweennations,cultures,religions,andtribes.Leadersaround
the world declare that the time for talk is over and that negotiation is
futile. On the national scene, members of differing political parties are
unable to have a real conversation with each other about anything. The
so-called talking heads on our television sets talk past each other, and
soundmorelikebarkingdogsthangenuinedebatepartners.Onaninter-
personal scale, the conversation-stopping phrase “you just can’t under-
stand me” because of a difference in gender, race, class, sexual orienta-
tion, or ethnicity (take your pick) commonly halts discussion. On occa-
sion,thoseuninterestedinengagingineventhemostpreliminaryverbal
exchange utilize the recognizable “talk to the hand” gesture, declaring
that all words one might want to speak will fall on deaf ears. This divi-
sion, spanning such a spectrum of social contexts, is all the more trou-
blingaswerecognizethenecessityofcultivatingmoreandmorefullya
globalcommunitythatcandeliberateandactuponsharedconcerns(con-
cernssuchasthehealthofourenvironment,humanrights,aworldecon-
omy,depletingnaturalresources, disease,protectingourselvesfromnu-
clear or biochemical destruction, etc.). In the face of this contemporary
demand,wefindourselvesconfrontedwiththepressingquestions:What
causesdialoguetobreakdown?And,whatdowedoonceithas?Onthe
eveoftheoft-repeated“timeforchange,”myhopeisthatwearereadyto
seekananswer.
Thisbookisaninvitationtoturntothephilosophicalhermeneuticsof
Hans-Georg Gadamer, which offers a philosophy rich in resources for
grappling with questions surrounding communication, understanding,
and the varying approaches we might take to others whose ideas are
considerably different from our own. While Gadamer’s magnum opus
Truth and Method explicitly concerns itself with discovering how under-
xi

Introduction xiii
Caputo4) to be fundamentally opposed in various ways to difference,
tension, or plurality among viewpoints. It appears to merge ideas in a
waythatalwaysmakes“one”outoftwoorevenforces “two”into“one”
and, thus, ultimately does violence to otherness, alterity, and resistance.
Criticsseeitasaunifyingandhomogenizingforcethataimstodoaway
withadiversityofperspectives—aprocessinwhichonehorizonistaken
over or assimilated by another more dominant one so that a totalized,
univocal, or static end may be reached. These critics see the fusion of
horizons to be representative of just what they see to be so un ethical
about Gadamer’s vision of understanding. Once we realize that the fu-
sionofhorizons,whichGadamerclaimstakesplaceinallunderstanding,
isafusionbetweenIandThou,thechargecomesthroughloudandclear.
Fromonesidewehearaccusationsthatunderstandingas“fusion”means
submittingtotheauthorityoftheOtherwhosearticulationwearetrying
to understand, taking on the Other’s point of view in a way that means
giving up our own power of reflection and critique, or even giving up
ourselves to the Other. From the other side we hear the concern that
fusionamountstotheprojectionofone’sownmeaningorinterpretation
ontothatoftheOther,whichresultsintheinterpreter’sethicallysuspect
denial of the Other’s difference, and a failure to recognize the true
uniquenessoftheOther’spointofviewthatiscentraltohisindividuality
andpersonhood.
ThoughIamasmesmerizedasthenextreaderbyGadamer’simageof
the fusion of horizons, I worry that the image considered alone is much
too susceptible to misinterpretation . . . a misinterpretation which I be-
lieveisthecauseofmuchofitscriticism.Wecanavoidamisrepresenta-
tion of the process of understanding that constitutes Gadamer’s account
and practice of hermeneutics if we move beyond our fixation on the
fusionofhorizons,andexpandourfocussothatGadamer’smoreperva-
sive concept throughout Truth and Method —“play” (Spiel )—may come
intoview.FocusingonGadamer’snotionofunderstandingas“play”will
allowustoseemoreclearlythewaythatunderstandingalwaysremains
a dynamic process in which difference is the lifeblood. It will also allow
ustoretrievethecontextinwhichwecanbettergraspthemeaningofthe
fusionofhorizons.5
Inreferringtoplayinthecontextofartalone,muchofthesecondary
literatureonGadamerdiscussestheconceptofplayonlyinitslocalrele-
vance.6 Those who sense that its significance might stretch beyond the
experienceofartworksto,atleast,thereadingoftexts,stillfinditslarger
implications to be vague or merely “suggestive,” and in need of further
explication.7 I would like to show that “play” has a global relevance in
philosophical hermeneutics and offer the “further explication” that has
been called for. I aim to show that “play” elucidates the very process of
understandingin general —theunderstandingwhichstretchesthroughall
ourhermeneuticexperience,includingourencounterswithart,withtext,