Ong, Walter J. "Hermeneutic Forever: Voice, Text, Digitization, and the 'I'" Oral Tradition 10:1 (1995), 3-26.
Ong points out that while we often think of interpretation as something done verbally or orally, in fact, it may be done in many non-verbal ways as well (Ong 1995, 3). Additionally, nonverbal events which comunicate something can be interpreted using words. A classic example of this would be an article or a book describing a scientivic experiment (Ong 1995, 4). The difficulty is that complete interpretation really never happens.
Ong observes that syntax of language is what makes it intelligible (Ong 1995, 5). Yet it is made more intelligible through some nonverbal elements. Ong illustrates the interaction of the verbal and nonverbal at some length. Yet nonverbal communication also has a syntax. To illustrate this, Ong describes a picture of a man carrying a sheep on his shoulders. It would mean something different in a different setting, whether a pastoral culture or a hunting culture, and whether a culture familiar with the New Testament or not (Ong 1995, 7). The challenge to the interpreter is identifying the appropriate context of both words and nonverbal communication.
Ong identifies the word "hermeneutics" as indicating interpretation, but specifically of a "reflective or 'scientific'" nature (Ong 1995, 8). He considers it to be divided into a number of stages. First, he finds there is oral interpretation of oral texts. Here the interpretation is of something which is spoken, but which could be replicated (Ong 1995, 8). There is room for interpretation, according to Ong, because specific oral communication is highly complex. It shows intent and intelligence, therefore is subject to detailed analysis in a way that many natural phenomena are not (Ong 1995, 9).
A second stage of interpretation is textual interpretation of oral utterance. Here the oral message is analyzed in writing as opposed to using speech (Ong 1995, 10). Ong finds this to be similar to the oral interpreation, but to operate more from a textual mindset (Ong 1995, 11).
A third stage is chirographic interpretation of written text. Here manuscripts are copied and commented upon without the rigidity of print and reprint. Much scholarship has been of this nature, as handwriting has historically been very commonly used until relatively recently.
A fourth stage is printed interpretation of printed text. The nature of printing is to make a text more stable, and the comments issued in print are likewise more stable than those spoken or issued in handwriting (Ong 1995, 11). This became a very common situation by the middle of the eighteenth century. It moves the commentator farther from the oral roots of communication.
In recent years we find electronically impleneted hermeneutics for oral utterance. Here an oral message will usually be recorded, then transferred to printed text (Ong 1995, 12).
A sixth stage is that of electronic hermeneutic of written, printed or electronic text. Herewe find tools such as databases which identify and analyze words which are part of a message. Text becomes the single most important element, and may become atomized, though Ong does not use that terminology (Ong 1995, 12).
Hermeneutics has had an explosion in recent years. Ong finds that there is a great emphasis on operating on or manipulating the elements of a textual message which was not common in past generations (Ong 1995, 13). While the discipline of hermenetics, first appearing in English in 1737, was originally applied to sacred texts, it has now become common in other disciplines as well. Ong describes the growth of the term to have included all sorts of interpretation, particularly as it is used since the 1970s (Ong 1995, 14). The word "interpretation" has not been as popular in recent years.
Ong notes that "the Greek term hermeneia refers indifferently to interpretation or explanation of oral utterance or text or other phenomena" (Ong 1995, 15). While it began with oral utterance, by our current time we have left the idea of orality behind and need to consciously return to the oral roots. Text brings in additional technology, at least some rudimentary technology. Oral interpretation requires none of that. Ong considers the playing field for interpretation to have shifted to text largely with the eighteenth century and the ability for authors to make profits by selling their ideas in print (Ong 1995, 16). The communication to be done is based on a microanalysis made possible by the very technology being used for interpretation.
While Ong sees the fragmentation created by computerized analysis as "dehumanizing" he does think our work of hermeneutics has also proceeded in the same direction. As a curative, Ong suggests that hermeneutics is to be a "holistic or totalizing enterprise" (Ong 1995, 17). Recapturing hermeneutics may draw us from the fragmentation of our current world into the ability to look at whole pictures of communication.
In the end, Ong finds that all of everyone's speech is, in a sense, hermeneutic. It is describing a reality, rather than being in and of itself that reality (Ong 1995, 18). The attempt to be explicit is important, but it is a given that we will not be able to communicate in a way which is absolutely, flawlessly, comprehensively explicit. There will always be room for interpretive work.
Ong goes on to describe a textual bias as something that leads to a sort of fundamentalism. This type of fundamentalism tends to limit the meaning of communication through the boundaries of actual text. Ong suggests that communication, and particularly Christian teaching and communication, is not limited to the textual propositional statements which can be made in this sort of fundamentalism (Ong 1995, 20). As an example, he speaks of how a pronoun, such as "I," may serve to describe a larger picture than a name. The name is imposed from outside. The identity and values of "I" come from within and are not as clearly defined. It is a work of hermeneutics to disclose the particular specific identity and values (Ong 1995, 21). At the heart of this communicative issue is that the people in discourse need to become conscious of one another, and interpret each other's values adequately to understand who they are interacting with.
Ong points out that while we often think of interpretation as something done verbally or orally, in fact, it may be done in many non-verbal ways as well (Ong 1995, 3). Additionally, nonverbal events which comunicate something can be interpreted using words. A classic example of this would be an article or a book describing a scientivic experiment (Ong 1995, 4). The difficulty is that complete interpretation really never happens.
Ong observes that syntax of language is what makes it intelligible (Ong 1995, 5). Yet it is made more intelligible through some nonverbal elements. Ong illustrates the interaction of the verbal and nonverbal at some length. Yet nonverbal communication also has a syntax. To illustrate this, Ong describes a picture of a man carrying a sheep on his shoulders. It would mean something different in a different setting, whether a pastoral culture or a hunting culture, and whether a culture familiar with the New Testament or not (Ong 1995, 7). The challenge to the interpreter is identifying the appropriate context of both words and nonverbal communication.
Ong identifies the word "hermeneutics" as indicating interpretation, but specifically of a "reflective or 'scientific'" nature (Ong 1995, 8). He considers it to be divided into a number of stages. First, he finds there is oral interpretation of oral texts. Here the interpretation is of something which is spoken, but which could be replicated (Ong 1995, 8). There is room for interpretation, according to Ong, because specific oral communication is highly complex. It shows intent and intelligence, therefore is subject to detailed analysis in a way that many natural phenomena are not (Ong 1995, 9).
A second stage of interpretation is textual interpretation of oral utterance. Here the oral message is analyzed in writing as opposed to using speech (Ong 1995, 10). Ong finds this to be similar to the oral interpreation, but to operate more from a textual mindset (Ong 1995, 11).
A third stage is chirographic interpretation of written text. Here manuscripts are copied and commented upon without the rigidity of print and reprint. Much scholarship has been of this nature, as handwriting has historically been very commonly used until relatively recently.
A fourth stage is printed interpretation of printed text. The nature of printing is to make a text more stable, and the comments issued in print are likewise more stable than those spoken or issued in handwriting (Ong 1995, 11). This became a very common situation by the middle of the eighteenth century. It moves the commentator farther from the oral roots of communication.
In recent years we find electronically impleneted hermeneutics for oral utterance. Here an oral message will usually be recorded, then transferred to printed text (Ong 1995, 12).
A sixth stage is that of electronic hermeneutic of written, printed or electronic text. Herewe find tools such as databases which identify and analyze words which are part of a message. Text becomes the single most important element, and may become atomized, though Ong does not use that terminology (Ong 1995, 12).
Hermeneutics has had an explosion in recent years. Ong finds that there is a great emphasis on operating on or manipulating the elements of a textual message which was not common in past generations (Ong 1995, 13). While the discipline of hermenetics, first appearing in English in 1737, was originally applied to sacred texts, it has now become common in other disciplines as well. Ong describes the growth of the term to have included all sorts of interpretation, particularly as it is used since the 1970s (Ong 1995, 14). The word "interpretation" has not been as popular in recent years.
Ong notes that "the Greek term hermeneia refers indifferently to interpretation or explanation of oral utterance or text or other phenomena" (Ong 1995, 15). While it began with oral utterance, by our current time we have left the idea of orality behind and need to consciously return to the oral roots. Text brings in additional technology, at least some rudimentary technology. Oral interpretation requires none of that. Ong considers the playing field for interpretation to have shifted to text largely with the eighteenth century and the ability for authors to make profits by selling their ideas in print (Ong 1995, 16). The communication to be done is based on a microanalysis made possible by the very technology being used for interpretation.
While Ong sees the fragmentation created by computerized analysis as "dehumanizing" he does think our work of hermeneutics has also proceeded in the same direction. As a curative, Ong suggests that hermeneutics is to be a "holistic or totalizing enterprise" (Ong 1995, 17). Recapturing hermeneutics may draw us from the fragmentation of our current world into the ability to look at whole pictures of communication.
In the end, Ong finds that all of everyone's speech is, in a sense, hermeneutic. It is describing a reality, rather than being in and of itself that reality (Ong 1995, 18). The attempt to be explicit is important, but it is a given that we will not be able to communicate in a way which is absolutely, flawlessly, comprehensively explicit. There will always be room for interpretive work.
Ong goes on to describe a textual bias as something that leads to a sort of fundamentalism. This type of fundamentalism tends to limit the meaning of communication through the boundaries of actual text. Ong suggests that communication, and particularly Christian teaching and communication, is not limited to the textual propositional statements which can be made in this sort of fundamentalism (Ong 1995, 20). As an example, he speaks of how a pronoun, such as "I," may serve to describe a larger picture than a name. The name is imposed from outside. The identity and values of "I" come from within and are not as clearly defined. It is a work of hermeneutics to disclose the particular specific identity and values (Ong 1995, 21). At the heart of this communicative issue is that the people in discourse need to become conscious of one another, and interpret each other's values adequately to understand who they are interacting with.
RSS Feed