Charles Taylor Intepretation and The Sciences of Man

Interpretation and the Sciences of Man Author(s): Charles Taylor Reviewed work(s): Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol.
25, No. 1 (Sep., 1971), pp. 3-51 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20125928 . Accessed: 11/02/2013 11:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:03:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARTICLES
AND THE SCIENCES OFMAN INTERPRETATION

CHARLES TAYLOR
JLs there
a sense
in which
in the sciences
of man?
"hermeneutical" avoidably to Dilthey. But back in the work of Gadamer,1 in Ric ur's to the fore, for instance, in and the of of Habermas.3 Freud,2 writings interpretation to hermeneutics, in the sense relevant is an Interpretation, sense of an object of to make clear, to make attempt study. This or a a be in which text, must, therefore, text-analogue, object is confused, contradic incomplete, cloudy, seemingly or one The unclear. aims to another, way interpretation tory?in or sense. an to coherence bring light underlying can be called "hermeneu This means that any science which be dealing with sense, must tical," even in an extended interrelated forms of meaning. another of the confusingly try to see a little more clearly what this involves. we
or
is essential to explanation it is, that there is an un in the sciences of man, goes component the has come recently question again interpretation The view that
some way
one
or
Let us
about which 1) We need, first, an object or field of objects, or its absence, of making can speak in terms of coherence sense
nonsense.
a distinction, even if 2) Second, we need to be able to make or a sense the relative one, between coherence made, and its only or signifier s. For in a particular field of carriers embodiment or con the task of making clear what is fragmentary otherwise, sense be radically fused would could No be impossible. given to this idea. We have to be able to make for our interpretations
1 2 3
Cf. Cf. Cf.
e.g., Paul e.g.,
H. Ric
G.
ur,
Wahrheit Gadamer, De l'interpr?tation, Erkenntnis und
und
Paris,
Methode, 1965.
T?bingen,
1960. 1968.
J. Habermas,
Interesse,
Frankfurt,
4 claims of the order
CHARLES TAYLOR
: the meaning in this text or present confusedly is here. The in other text-analogue clearly expressed meaning, one more is one which of admits than words, and, in expression, this sense, a distinction must be possible between meaning and
expression.
The point of the above qualification, that be only relative, is that there are cases where line can be drawn between uous, nonarbitrary can It be plausibly (I expression. argued there isn't
this distinction may no clear, unambig what is said and its
think convincingly to into it this is the normal that space go although here) and fundamental condition of meaningful that exact expression, or a rare of meaning, is and localized synonymy, equivalence or uses of civilization. of specialized achievement But languages do away with the distinc this, if true (and I think it is), doesn't tion between meaning and expression. sense in which ameaning re-expressed Even if there is an important can not be in a new medium this by no means entails that we can give no a meaning of expressing in a new way. It does
declared identical, sense to the project of course raise an interesting and difficult question about what can a it in clearer way: what be meant is the "it" which by expressing is clarified examining Hence if equivalence is denied? in the sciences interpretation must be describ the object of a science of interpretation sense terms in of and its absence; able and nonsense, coherence between meaning and its expres and must admit of a distinction
sion.
I hope to return of man.
to this
in
can is also a third condition it must meet. We or of their and different coherence, embodiments, speak as gestalts, or patterns in connection with such phenomena in or snow crystals, where rock formations, the notion of expression What is lacking here is the notion of a subject has no real warrant. 3) There of sense of criteria are. Without such a subject, the choice these meanings and difference, of sameness the choice among the dif can be identified ferent forms of coherence which in a given pat it can be seen, fields in which tern, among the different conceptual for whom
is arbitrary.
on the other hand, we In a text or text-analogue, make and this means explicit the meaning expressed, or for a subject or subjects. The notion of expression
are trying
to
expressed by refers us to
AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

that of a subject. The
identification of the subject is by no means see further on; we as it may be shall unproblematical, necessarily an area in which one of the most difficult problems, prevailing prejudice may blind us to the nature of our object epistemological And of study. I think this has been the case, as Iwill show below. of a subject does not assure us of a the identification moreover, as and expression clear and absolute distinction between meaning even a relative one, is we saw above. But any such distinction, without subject. The sense, subject. ii on to see in what way, if any, these condi going are realized in the sciences of man, I think it would be useful it matters to set out more clearly what rides on this question, why or not we think of the sciences of man as hermeneutical, whether Before tions what an epistemological one. But it is cannot but be one, and, hence, to our notions relevant of science and of the proper conduct of We might has issue which say that it is an ontological inquiry. ever since been the seventeenth in terms of century argued some to be to considerations which have epistemological appeared The
unanswerable.
any anchor object of
at all,
is totally of
arbitrary,
without
appeal
to a
a science from
distinguishable
must thus have: interpretation or by a for which is its expression,
the issue is at stake here. issue here is at root from an ontological inextricable
The case could be put in these terms : what are the criteria of in a hermeneutical science? A successful judgment interpretation clear the meaning is one which makes in a con present originally one how form. But does know that this fused, fragmentary, cloudy sense of is correct? it because makes interpretation Presumably con text: what is strange, mystifying, puzzling, no is is accounted The for. longer so, tradictory interpretation to our understanding of the "language" of throughout appeals which allows us to see that this expres expression, understanding sion is puzzling, to that other, etc., and that it is in contradiction the original that these difficulties
in a new way.
are cleared
up when
the meaning
is expressed
6 But this
CHARLES TAYLOR
seems to be crucially appeal to our understanding someone not if What "see" does the adequacy of our inadequate. our not does We accept try to show him interpretation, reading? nonor sense of the original But for how it makes partial sense. him must hence what the to follow us he must these recognize be looking can we do? same. We as we do, he read the original language a as in certain and way, puzzling expressions to our problem. If he does not, for a solution it would The answer, seem, can only be more of to show him
of other the reading through we in be read this expression must the way pro why expressions that he follow us in these other But success here requires pose. We can forever. and so on, it would seem, potentially readings, common a of the to not escape an ultimate understanding appeal one of is This of involved. the way trying "language" expressions, have we circle." What to express what has been called the "hermeneutical or a text are trying to establish of is certain reading expressions, for this reading can only be and what we appeal to as our grounds The circle can also be put in terms of part-whole other readings. a reading we are trying to establish for the whole relations: text, and of its partial expressions; and for this we appeal to readings are with we with because sense, making meaning, dealing yet sense or not in relation to others, the where expressions only make on those of others, and of partial depend readings expressions of the whole. ultimately convince in forensic terms, as we started to do above, we can only an interlocutor if at some point he shares our under If he does not, there is no concerned. of the language standing we can try to awaken further step to take in rational argument; in him, or we can simply give up; argument will these intuitions can But of course the forensic predicament advance us no further. Put
to if I am this ill-equipped into my own judging: be transferred can how a convince I how stubborn convince interlocutor, myself? or distorted, maybe are wrong can I be sure? Maybe my intuitions into a circle of illusion. to this would the only sane response one, and perhaps is an ineradicable be to say that such uncertainty part of our even to characterize it as "un That predicament. epistemological severe an of to criterion is "certainty," adopt absurdly certainty" of any sensible use. But this has not which the concept deprives Now I am locked
AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION OF MAN

been the
of our philosophical response only or even the main And it is another response which has had an important and far-reaching effect on the sciences of man. The demand has can only be attained by breaking been for a level of certainty which beyond the circle. in which this break-out has been envisag There are two ways tradition. one and could be be called the "rationalist" first might a in to It not involve a culmination reach does thought Hegel. or our of of but of intuition, negation meaning, understanding of such clarity rather aspires to attainment of an understanding ed. The that Hegel's it would in case, a it with of its inner such that carries grasp necessity, "thought" we see how it could not be otherwise. No higher grade of certainty is badly is conceivable. For this aspiration the word "break-out" an to inner to aim is rather the chosen; bring understanding is absolute. clarity which The other way, which we can call "empiricist," is a genuine our own to circle the of to get go beyond attempt interpretations, to is The reconstruct in attempt beyond subjectivity. knowledge such a way that there is no need to make final appeal to readings or judgments which can not be checked further. That is why the on this view is the impression, block of knowledge basic building or sense-datum, a unit of information which is not the deliverance no element of a judgment, which has by definition in it of reading or interpretation, is a brute datum. which ambition The highest would be to build our knowledge from such building blocks by could be anchored in a certainty beyond judgments which subjec This iswhat underlies tive intuition. the attraction of the notion of as a is viewed ideas, or if the same procedure If the original induction. of units of the method, acquisition or interpretation, information is not the fruit of judgment then the the association of constatation that two such elements occur together need not either be the fruit of interpretation, of a reading or intuition which cannot occurrence a a be checked. For if the of brute is single element then so is the co-occurrence of two such elements. The datum, on to true then correct would the repose knowledge path crucially
recording of such co-occurrences.
carry with for instance,
it the certainty of the undeniable. our full understanding of the whole
In
This
iswhat
lies behind
an ideal of verification
which
is central
CHARLES TAYLOR
to an important in the philosophy of science, whose main tradition are the Verification contemporary protagonists logical empiricists. must be grounded in of the brute data. ultimately acquisition By data whose "brute data," Imean here and throughout validity can not be questioned or reading, another by offering interpretation data whose reasoning.4 credibility If such then cannot be founded of a difference or undermined by further can arise over interpretation so on
given data, as to distinguish the basis of them. The inferences be beyond
to structure the argument be possible the basic, brute data from the inferences made it must
of course, to be valid must themselves, similarly a of the challenge rival interpretation. Here the logical added to the armory of traditional which empiricists empiricism set great store by the method of induction, the whole domain of inference which had been central to the logical and mathematical rationalist position and which at (with Leibniz another offered least, brand not with although of unquestionable
Hegel),
certainty.
were
and empirical verification inference course, mathematical in such a way that two theories or more could be combined to verified of the same domain of facts. But this was a consequence to accommodate As which itself. logical empiricism was willing in a theory which could not be rigorously for the surplus meaning to be quite outside with brute data, it was considered co-ordinated Of the logic of verification. As a theory of perception, this epistemology gave rise to all sorts of problems, not least of which was the perpetual threat of and solipsism from a conception of the basic inseparable skepticism as brute data, beyond investigation. data of knowledge As a theory
4 the
The as
notion the
of brute "brute v. 18, pp. may
same
Facts," Cambridge, contrasted i.e., would
Analysis, 1969, to what which an
some relation is not at all to, but "On Brute Anscombe, by Elizabeth and John 1957-1958, Searle, Acts, pp. 69-72, Speech For 50-53. Anscombe and brute facts are Searle, be called to use Searle's 'institutional facts', term, data here has facts" discussed
the existence of certain institutions. Voting see below as we in part shall institu But, II, some example. as X's having can be verified as brute tional such voted data facts, Liberal, a place in the sense used in the category and thus find of political here, as easily are cannot behavior. What in terms be described data of brute facts presuppose be the institutions themselves. Cf. the discussion below in part II.
it seems largely a thing of the past, in spite of perception, however, in the in the Anglo-Saxon world of a surprising recrudescence But there is no doubt that it goes marching 'thirties and 'forties. as a theory of how the human mind and on, among other places, human
In
knowledge
a sense, the
actually of what
function.
period has seen a better, more
contemporary
is about in the form this epistemology rigorous These try to model theories of intelligence. of computer-influenced on as of operations machine-recognizable consisting intelligence which be matched could themselves which by programs input The machine criterion provides us with could be run on machines. statement or interpretations an appeal to intuition our assurance against cannot be understood which operating by fully explicit procedures on brute data?the input.5 to this The progress of natural science has lent great credibility on can this model, be plausibly reconstructed since it epistemology, course, sciences has been done by the logical empiricists. And, of the to reconstruct has been overwhelming the temptation or rather to launch them in of man on the same model; since they are constantly lines of inquiry that fit this paradigm, an earlier vogue where said to be in their "infancy." Psychology, a of boom of behaviorism is being computer-based replaced by bias?one sciences. might Later say obses I would like as for instance
is far from the only case. models, The form this epistemological for different sion?takes is different
to look at a particular the issue case, the study of politics, where can be followed out. But in general, the empiricist orientation to a conduct of inquiry which must is based on inter be hostile and which encounters pretation, was characterized above. This the hermeneutical cannot meet circle as this of es the requirements it considers which
intersubjective, non-arbitrary And along with sential to science. the ontological and standing belief that explanation
verification
the epistemological must be susceptible reality so science understood. by
stance goes to under From this
5 1967,
Cf.
dure, be realized
pp. which
in M. Minsky, N. J., Cliffs, Computation, Englewood where that an effective 104-107, argues proce Minsky explicitly or no longer can intuition is one which requires interpretation, discussion by a machine.
10 follows
must be.
TAYLOR CHARLES
a certain set of notions of what the sciences of man
the other hand, many, would like to including myself, are man that these notions about the of sciences argue sterile, that we cannot come to understand dimensions of human life important set by this epistemological within the bounds orientation. This is of course familiar to all in at least some of its ramifica dispute tions.
above.
On
What
Iwant
to claim of
in terms
of the notion
is that the issue can be fruitfully posed as I began it to outline interpretation
the question I think this way of putting is useful because it us at once to bring to the surface the powerful epistemo view of the sciences of the orthodox underlie logical beliefs which man in our academy, and to make the notion of our explicit allows This thesis. epistemological predicament implicit in the opposing to the tradition of and shocking is in fact rather more way-out or the admitted realized than is often scientific oppo thought by It may not strengthen the case of the nents of narrow scientism. opposition
science as
to bring
far as
out
fully what
waverers
is involved
is concerned,
in a hermeneutical
but a gain in
convincing
clarity ophy.
is surely worth
a thinning
of the ranks?at
least
in philos
iii
on to look at the case of political science, it might should we even pose the be worth asking another question: why man are hermeneutical? of the sciences What whether question men con us their that and actions in first idea the the place gives the conditions stitute an object or a series of objects which meet Before going outlined level or that of is that on the phenomenological of this for the purposes (and the two converge speech ordinary an a has essential certain of notion meaning place in argument) in is the sense of human behavior. This the characterization which a prospect a demand, an action, speak of a situation, a a certain for person. having meaning Now it is frequently that "meaning" is used here in thought a sense which is a kind of illegitimate extension from the notion of an extension or Whether it can be considered linguistic meaning. we above? The answer

not But
the
11
it certainly differs from linguistic meaning. is another matter; use of it would be very hard to argue that it is an illegitimate
term.
of a given predicament, we speak of the "meaning" are using a concept which has the following articulation, a) a not it is the of for situation is the in subject: meaning Meaning for a subject, a specific subject, a group of vacuo, but its meaning its meaning is for the human subjects, or perhaps what subject as When not humans might be reproached with though particular or is of something; b) Meaning this). realizing admitting a between that is, we can distinguish element?situation, given But this is not to say that its meaning. action, or whatever?and two Rather we are dealing with separable. they are physically one in in is of it characterized of which the element, descriptions terms of its meaning between for the subject. But the relations are not symmetrical. the two descriptions For, on the one hand, in terms of the description cannot be unless descriptions meaning or as there can be no of the other kind apply well; put differently, such (even
we
a substrate. it may be without But on the other hand, meaning another that the same meaning be borne may substrate?e.g., by a situation with in different the same meaning may be realized a a for role conditions. is There necessary physical potentially or all meanings are of something. And thirdly, c) things only have meaning in a field, that is, in relation to the meanings of other things. This means that there is no such thing as a single, unrelated meaningful and itmeans element; substitutable substrate; that changes in the given tion to others, word depends, trasts, defining which define in the other meanings element. changes be identified except in rela Meanings and in this way resemble words. The meaning of a on for instance, it con those words with which can't define its place dimensions, or "language in the language (e.g., those on those like color, shape), it in (describ game" figures in the field can involve
on those which "determinable" the activity
ing, invoking, establishing between meanings in this a semantic field. Just as our color of contrast concepts
and so on. The relations communion), sense are like those between in concepts
are given their meaning concepts by the field so set that the introduction of new up together, they will alter the boundaries so the various of others,
12
meanings that a subordinate's demeanor can
CHARLES TAYLOR
have for us, as
deferential, solent,
ironical, respectful, cringing, mocking, mildly rude, are established provoking, downright by a field of on our part, or a more and as with finer discrimination contrast; new are culture, born, so other terms of sophisticated possibilities of our terms "red," And as the meaning this range are altered. "blue,"
in
of a field of contrast is fixed by the definition "green" so term the determinable all these alternative "color," through are only available in a society which demeanors has, among other hierarchical of and relations command. And cor power types, to the of color language game underlying designating responding ed objects is the archical structures thus Meaning is for a set of social practices which and are fulfilled in them. sense?let us call sustain these hier
in this
of something, subject, it from linguistic meaning which guishes structure. dimensional is for subjects and in meaning Linguistic a field, but it is the meaning and it is about a world of of signifiers and differences, referents. Once we are clear about the likenesses that the term "meaning" be little doubt an into extension the of misnomer, illegitimate product text of experience and behavior. there should is not a this con
it experiential meaning? in a field. This distin has a four and not three
which we There is thus a quite legitimate notion of meaning a an use when we speak of the meaning And for situation of agent. our that this concept has a place is integral to ordinary conscious ness and hence speech about our actions. Our actions are ordinar by desires, sought and explained ily characterized by the purpose our we describe emotions. But the language by which feelings, a of the definition desires is also meaning things feelings, goals, have for us. rifying,"
"fear," sion."
The vocabulary defining meaning?words that describing linked with "attractive"?is

that describing goals?"safety,"
like "ter feeling?

"posses
"desire"?and
our understanding of these terms moves Moreover, inescapably An in a hermeneutical term like "shame," emotion for circle. us a to refers certain kind of situation, the instance, essentially or "humiliating," and a certain mode of response, that "shameful," of covering up, or else "wiping of hiding out" the blot. oneself, That is, it is essential to this feeling's being identified as shame
OF MAN AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION

that it be related to this
13
and give rise to this type of situation turn can only be identified in its in But this situation disposition. to is and the disposition it provokes; relation to the feelings which to without reference a goal which can similarly not be understood one is in which the the feelings question "hiding" experienced: from an cover up my it is not the same as hiding will shame; we can only understand what ismeant by "hiding" armed pursuer; here talked if we understand We have what kind about. to be within of feeling and situation the circle. is being
can only be explained by reference in turn cannot be understood to other concepts which ref without erence to shame. these concepts we have to be in To understand An emotion term like "shame"
on a certain experience, we have to understand a certain language,
action and but also a certain language of mutual just of words, we esteem which each blame, exhort, admire, communication, by we on we are this because in the in In end the other. grow up can we common often experience But ambit of certain meanings. the feeling, what it is like to be on the outside when we encounter not action, and experiential meaning language of another civilization. no way of explaining in other, more Here there is no translation, on can catch somehow We accessible concepts. only by getting human Thus if we look at into their way of life, if only in imagination. as action done out of a background of desire, behavior are a we at which must then be emotion, looking reality feeling, But does this mean that it can in terms of meaning. as was science of a hermeneutical this outlined above?
characterized
be the object that the three characteristics There are, to remind ourselves, or sense must a have has: it of science of object interpretation its must from and this be distinguishable coherence; expression, this sense must Now insofar as action, hence about behavior the category of sense or coherence must apply in terms of meaning, to it. This is not to say that all behavior must "make sense," ifwe mean by this be rational, confusion avoid contradiction, of purpose, a great deal of our action falls short of this and the like. Plainly irrational action is But in another sense, even contradictory, goal. make sense of," when we understand in. We why it was engaged sense of action when there is a coherence between the actions of his situation for him. We find of the agent and the meaning "made be for a subject. as we are talking
14 his action
CHARLES TAYLOR
not be action full of of this
It may puzzling until we find such a coherence. in no way implies that the bad to repeat that this coherence for an agent may be is rational: of a situation the meaning and contradiction; but the adequate confusion depiction contradiction
sense of it. makes sense in this way through coherence of meaning and Making cannot but move in the meanings of action and situation, action, a hermeneutical that the account makes Our conviction circle. sense is contingent on our reading of action and situation. But or justified except by reference these readings cannot be explained to the whole. to other such readings, and their relation If an or will not does not understand this kind of reading, can go. as else the there is nowhere it valid, argument accept sense a good explanation is one which makes of the Ultimately, one has to a good explanation, but then to appreciate behavior; interlocutor sense is a sense; what makes agree on what makes good good and these in turn are based on the kind function of one's readings;
of sense one understands.
that sense should be characteristic, for a is necessary This its embodiment? distinguishable a to claim make science of interpretation because interpretation lays a confused meaning be some sense in hence there must clearer; but differently. which is expressed, the "same" meaning In talking of experiential raises a difficulty. This immediately But how about the second from meaning a I mentioned that we can distinguish between above, and substrate. between meaning and its meaning, given element in This carried the claim that a given meaning may be realized can always But does this mean that we another substrate.
in another situation? the same meaning there Perhaps embody are some situations, for which before instance, death, standing otherwise. can't be embodied have ameaning which But purposes. text and behavior science implicit in the notion of man with text is modifications. The important only applies one another is in which the clearer. text, interpretation replaced by of behavior is not replaced by another such text The text-analogue When this happens we have revolutionary theatre, or analogue. terroristic acts designed to make propaganda of the deed, in this difficult question fortunately For here we have a case in which is irrelevant for our between the analogy of a hermeneutical

which the hidden relations in a dramatic confrontation. ing, even though or claim to be. But in science count. Which it may
15
of a society are supposedly shown up But this is not scientific understand perhaps be based on such understanding,
the text-analogue is replaced by a text, an ac the how we can even begin prompt question, might same meaning more to talk of interpretation of the here, expressing we two have when terms of com such utterly different clearly, a a text and tract of behavior? Is the whole parison, thing not just a bad pun? This question leads us to open up another aspect of experiential we which from earlier. abstracted meaning Experiential meanings are defined as words are in semantic fields. in fields of contrast, But what definition was not mentioned above is that these two kinds of The range independent is bound up with and hence meanings desires, emotions, feelings, the level and type of culture, which from in turn is inseparable the distinctions and categories the marked language people by a given situation can find The field of meanings in which speak. its place is bound up with the semantic field of the terms charac terizing
aments .
aren't
of each other.
of human
these meanings
and
the related
feelings,
desires,
predic
But the relationship involved here is not a simple one. There are two simple types of models of relation which could be offered could think of the feeling We here, but both are inadequate. as as marking feelings, pre-existing simply describing vocabulary would be there without But this is not them. we or others how in often ourselves adequate experience a more of the emotions say, achieving, vocabulary sophisticated our emotional not makes life more and sophisticated just our de because scriptions picture But we a good, powerful of it. Reading novel may give me the I had not previously of an emotion which been aware of. an increased ability to iden can't draw a neat line between which this enables. distinctions which
of the relationship is to from above to the the conclusion that it so. jump thinking makes new not But this clearly won't do either, since definition just any can be forced on us, nor can we force it on ourselves; and some which we do gladly take up can be judged inauthentic, or in bad
tify and an altered ability to feel emotions The other simple inadequate model
16 faith,
CHARLES TAYLOR
or just wrong-headed These judgments may be by others. are an not in illicit. Rather we make but wrong, principle they effort to be lucid about ourselves and our feelings, and admire a man who achieves this. the simple correspondence view is correct, nor Thus, neither so. the view that thinking makes it But both have prima facie war rant. which There is such a thing as self-lucidity, points us to a of but the achievement such view; correspondence lucidity means At the same it the known. moral that is, changes change, object just an absence of correspondence; bad faith, self-delusion, inauthenticity, or of the kind; it is of human one's feelings, something repression as what a matter is is felt just as much of the quality of what is. known about this, just as self-knowledge is not If this is so, then we have to think of man as a self-interpreting He is necessarily animal. so, for there is no such thing as the of his interpretation structure of meanings for him independently of them; for one is woven into the other. But then the text of our from what is interpreted; is not that heterogeneous interpretation a self-interpreta for what is interpreted is itself an interpretation; It is an interpreta tion which in a stream of action. is embedded to the constitution tion of experiential meaning contributes which that of which we of this meaning. Or to put it in another way: are trying to find the coherence is itself partly constituted by self interpretation. Our aim time, error about oneself it is also in some form
neous
this confused, incomplete, partly erro a one. correct in And doing this we self-interpretation by but to the stream of behavior look not only to the self-interpretation a historical it is set; just as in interpreting in which document we is to replace
have to place it in the stream of events which it relates to. But of we course the analogy are is not exact, for here the interpreting set to it stream of in which and behavior is the interpretation or one not and the other. gether, just There is thus no utter heterogeneity of interpretation to what rather there is a slide in the notion of interpretation. it is about; one's situation in terms Already to be a living agent is to experience sense a can as a sort and this in of certain meanings; be thought of of proto-"interpretation." in which by the language This is in turn lives the agent and interpreted these meanings. shaped This

whole is then at a third level
17
we interpreted by the explanation proffer of his actions. In this way the second condition of a hermeneutical science ismet. But this account poses in a new light the question mention ed at the beginning can ever express whether the interpretation as the interpreted. the same meaning And in this case, there is clearly a way
in which the two will not be congruent. For if the is clearer than the lived interpretation then it explanation really will be such that it would alter in some way the behavior if it came to be internalized In this by the agent as his self-interpretation. a hermeneutical science its achieves that which way is, attains goal, than or the of immediate greater clarity agent understanding us an must offer which is in this observer, way interpretation the explicandum. crucially out of phase with seen as action of agents who desire and Thus, human behavior are moved, who have goals and aspirations, offers a necessarily for in terms of I have called purchase descriptions meaning?what norm The of it which "experiential meaning." explanation posits is one which "makes sense" of the behavior, which shows a coher ence of meaning. sense of" is the prof erring of an "making seen that what is interpreted meets have interpretation; of a science of interpretation: the conditions first, that we can and second, that this sense can be speak of its sense or coherence; in another form, so that we can speak of the interpreta expressed This and we tion as giving clearer The
to what is only implicit in the expression sense a third that this be for condition, explicandum. subject, is obviously met in this case, although who this subject is is by no an unproblematical as we shall see later on. means question to show that there is a good be enough prima facie case to the effect that men and their actions are amenable to a of some hermeneutical There kind. is, therefore, explanation reason to raise the issue and challenge the epistemological orienta This should out of the sciences of man. A interpretation to be said in the is involved great bring out what on to this, it hermeneutical sciences of man. But before getting a couple of drawn might help to clarify the issue with examples from a specific field, that of politics. would rule deal more must tion which
18
TAYLOR CHARLES II i
In politics, centration straction
science has led to the con too, the goal of a verifiable on features which can supposedly in ab be identified or not understanding from our understanding experiential
us call them brute data identifications?are These?let meaning. us to break out from the hermeneutical what enable supposedly circle and found our science four square on a verification procedure of the empiricist tradition. But for such brute data has not gone to it has in psychology, the lengths which where the object of science as behavior has been thought of by many qua "colorless move or as The tendency in ment," machine-recognizable properties. to has been with less but?so it is basic, stop something politics the requirements in politics the search cannot be challenged identification of which thought?the by the or of another offering interpretation reading of the data concerned This is what is referred to as "behavior" in the (pp. 7-9 above). rhetoric of political but it has not the rock bottom quality scientists, of its psvchological homonym. Political behavior includes what we would call ac ordinarily ones are but that brute data How identifiable. tions, supposedly can this be so? Well, actions are usually described by the purpose
or end-state realized. But the purposes of some actions can be
which
meets
be thought to be brute data terms; some specified might for instance, have physical like getting the car actions, end-states, or climbing in the garage the mountain. Others have end-states which are closely tied by institutional rules to some unmistakable I raise my hand in the meeting at thus, when physical movement; the appropriate The only ques time, I am voting for the motion. tions we can raise about the corresponding such actions, given or the realization movements are whether of such end-states, the was aware was was of as he what agent doing, against acting simply emitting of his movement, reflex behavior, knew the institutional significance on this score etc. Any worries turn out generally are concern in contexts the scientists artificial political e.g., they do arise they can be checked by relatively to vote for asking the subject: did you mean
in what
to be pretty and where ed with; simple devices, the motion?
19
can be it would Hence, appear that there are actions which fear of interpretative and this identified beyond what is dispute; foundation for the of the behavior." category gives "political can relevance which Thus, there are some acts of obvious political as be specified thus in physical terms, such killing, sending tanks them to cells; and confining and streets, seizing people can be specified from is an immense ran.?-e of others which such as voting acts by institutional for instance. rules, physical can hope to These can be the object of a science of politics which into the there meet of verification. the stringent The latter class requirements matter for in recent has decades?most provided study particularly case in the of studies. voting notably But of course be much a science For too narrow. of politics on another confined to such acts would actions also have level these
for the agents which is not exhausted in the brute data meaning and which is often crucial to understanding why they descriptions, were done. I am also saving the for the motion in voting Thus, honor of my party, or defending the value of free speech, or vin or from breakdown. dicating saving civilization public morality, much terms that the agents talk about the motivation of a science of their political action, and it is difficult to conceive of politics which it. doesn't come to grips with comes to Behavioral science it by taking political grips with as the meanings involved in action facts about the agent, his beliefs, his affective reactions, his "values," as the term is frequently used. For it can be thought in the brute data sense that men verifiable It is in such agree to subscribe or not to a certain form of words (expres or to reaction sing a belief, say) ; or express a positive negative certain events, or symbols; or agree or not with the proposition that some act is right or wrong. as just We can thus get at meanings form of the another brute data by of the opinion techniques survey and content analysis. An immediate
will
If we are trying to objection springs to mind. deal with the meanings which inform political action, then surely acumen is unavoidable. Let us say we are trying to interpretive the goals and values of a certain group, understand or grasp their vision of the polity; we might a to this try probe by questionnaire asking them whether they assent or not to a number of propositions, are meant to express different which beliefs. evaluations, goals,
20 But how did we
CHARLES TAYLOR
How did we pick these design the questionnaire? Here we relied on our understanding of the goals, can be chal involved. But then this understanding our hence the significance of results questioned.
propositions? values, vision and lenged,
the finding of our study, the compiling of proportions of Perhaps assent and dissent to these propositions is irrelevant, is without for understanding the agents or the polity concerned. significance This kind political To this the proponents move ard of logical empiricism: of attack is frequently science, or for that matter by critics of mainstream science in general. of this mainstream reply with a stand social made
the process of distinguishing our of from the it is Of verification. under course, logic discovery of these meanings which enables us to draw up the standing will test which in respect to them. attitudes questionnaire people's interpretive dispute there are no brute a rival science. say, about data at this these meanings is poten level, every affirma But this has interpretation. What is firmly verified is the to certain for instance, propositions that people who in a certain set of
And, of course,
tially endless; tion can be challenged by to do with verifiable nothing set of correlations and certain are active between, We behavior.
the assent
discover,
(defined by participation politically are more to certain sets of proposi institutions) likely to consent the values the system.6 tions underlying supposedly expressing no matter what one is a firmly verified correlation This finding thinks
or simple hunches, of the reasoning, that went into design a as which science the it. Political established research ing body of not made of such it is does correlations; up give a truth knowledge or A value to the background hunch. reasoning good interpretive on the right correlations nose may be useful to test, but in hitting science is never called on to arbitrate the disputes between inter pretations. Thus,
can be defined in addition to those overt acts which or the of can behavior category political physically institutionally, or the occurrence include assent or dissent to verbal formulae, or or expressions not of verbal formulae in speech, or of approval
6 American
Cf.
H. McClosky, Political Science
"Consensus Review, v.
and 58,
Ideology 1964, pp.
in American 361-382.
Politics,"

rejection of certain behavior events (for or measures instance, as observed in institution a demonstra out for turning which
21
ally-defined tion) . Now there this notion ways
are a number
of political
of objections one might behavior;
how interpretation-free it from another angle. One of the basic question of this kind of social science is that it reconstructs certain These allow
can be made to in all sorts of question it is in fact. But I would like to characteristics reality in line for an inter
with
categorial principles. social reality which is made up of brute data, identifiable certain It actions. structures, institutions, procedures, as allows for beliefs, affective evaluations the psycho reactions, And it allows for correlations of individuals. logical properties between these two orders or reality: e.g., that certain beliefs go subjective acts and etc. along with certain acts, certain values with certain institutions, To put it another way, what is objectively (intersubjectively) This is what real is brute data identifiable. social reality is. Social reality described could
disputes by brute data out of blind anger, because to redress humiliation, rioting they recover a sense of dignity in insurrection?), this is given subjective affective reactions, evalua reality, that is, there are certain beliefs, tions which individuals beliefs reality. and the fact that reality. beliefs, pretive But These make or have about or in relation to social or reactions can have an effect on this reality; social such a belief is held is a fact of objective
for the actors, such that in terms of its meaning arise about interpretation be settled which couldn't a or are they are to get hearing, (e.g., people rioting
the social reality which can only be made reactions of reality in terms is only allowed question
description
is the object of these attitudes, Thus any up of brute data. of meanings is open to inter which
if it is into this scientific discourse as to their as it in individuals and attributed were, quotes placed, etc. is is That held this attitude. belief, belief, opinion, opinion, as as a since is of it brute redefined the datum, respondent's thought giving a certain answer to the questionnaire. concerns This aspect of social reality which its meanings for of ways, but recently the agents has been taken up in a number it has been spoken of in terms of political culture. Now the way this is defined and studied illustrates the categorial clearly principles For instance, political culture is referred to by Almond above. and
22 Powell tem" 7 as
CHARLES TAYLOR
the "psychological dimension of the political sys on Further state: "Political culture is the pattern (23). they of individual attitudes and orientations towards politics among the members of a political It is the realm which system. subjective and gives meaning to political underlies actions" The (50). authors then go on to distinguish three different kinds of orienta and beliefs), tions, cognitive (knowledge evaluative and (judgments opinions). From the point of view of empiricist affective (feelings), and
this set of epistemology, out. leaves and Both the mean categorial principles nothing reality are it for actors has But what in cannot it fact ings coped with. allow for are inter subjective meanings, that is, it cannot allow for the validity of descriptions of social reality in terms of mean are not in quotation marks and ings, hence not as brute data, which as opinion, to attributed etc. it Now is attitude, individual(s). that Iwould this exclusion like to challenge in the name of another set of categorial principles, inspired by a quite other epistemology. ii We of acts by spoke earlier about the brute data identification means cross a some of institutional rules. beside Thus, putting one's name on a slip of paper and putting in this in a box counts as voting the right context for that person; the room, leaving a certain form of words, counts as breaking off saying or writing on name a as the negotiations; counts one's of paper writing piece at the petition, etc. is worth But what is what signing looking are the underlies this set of identifications. These identifications a a of of social which marks life, language application language distinctions tures. Let social among different possible But what underlies this language? us take acts, relations, struc
of breaking the example off negotiations above. our The language of states or actions like the society recognizes into negotiation, off negotiations, following: entering breaking offering to negotiate, making negotiations,
7
in good negotiating a new offer, etc.
(bad) faith, concluding In other more jargon
Gabriel a Developmental text here and
Almond and G. Bingham Powell, and Toronto, Boston 1966. Approach, are to this work. below
A.
Page
Politics: Comparative references in my

infested
23
the semantic language, "space" of this range of social a activity is carved up in certain way, by a certain set of distinctions our vocabulary marks; and the shape and nature of these which in this area. of our language distinctions is the nature These are applied in our society with more or less formalism contexts. Our whole But of course this is not true of every society. the distinct notion of negotiation is bound up for instance with distinctions in different of the parties, with the willed nature of and autonomy identity their relations; notion. But other societies it is a very contractual It is reported about the traditional have no such conception. of its social life was a powerful Japanese village that the foundation a on unanimous deci form of consensus, which put high premium 8 if two would be considered shattered sion. Such a consensus to separate out, pursuing parties were opposed clearly articulated or push it aims and attempting either to vote down the opposition on the most terms for them into a settlement favorable possible of there must be, and some kind of adjustment our idea of bargaining, of with the assumption no distinct autonomous in has willed there; parties relationship, place nor does a series of distinctions, into and leaving like entering or bargaining the genuine in good faith (sc. with negotiation, selves. Discussion differences. But intention Now of seeking agreement). the difference between our society and one of the kind if we said we have a
could not be well expressed just described to describe negotiation which say, vocabulary they lack. We might to describe the heavens for instance, that we have a vocabulary that for here we assume mechanics; they lack, viz., that of Newtonian as we do, that they live under the same heavens it only understand same true not is But it that have the of kind differently. they as we do. or whatever The word, word of their bargaining must have an entirely dif language we translate as "bargaining," is marked their vocabulary ferent gloss, which by the distinctions ours. to those marked in contrast But allows this different by
The Agrarian C. Smith, Cf. Thomas ch. 5. This ford, 1959, type of consensus for instance, the desa Cf. societies. system
Origins is also of the
Stan of Modern Japan. in other found traditional Indonesian village.
24 gloss is not just a difference of vocabulary, but
CHARLES TAYLOR
also one of social
as a way of putting be misleading the differ a that there is social can which imply reality be discovered in each society and which might exist quite independ of that society, or indeed of any ently of the vocabulary vocabulary, as the heavens would exist whether men theorized about them or not. And this is not the case; the realities here are practices; and be identified in abstraction from the language we use or or invoke That the them, them, carry them out. us of to allows in good practice negotiation distinguish bargaining or bad faith, or or into off entering breaking presup negotiations, for us, poses that our acts and situation have a certain description that we are distinct into willed relations. e.g., parties entering to describe But how have these descriptions for us unless this is some our in of this if not in our expressed vocabulary practice; we of as the be unconscious of (for may descriptions practices yet some of the important in the distinctions) appropriate language for carrying them on. a distinction (Thus, the language marking public and private acts or contexts may exist even where are not part of this language; terms or their equivalents for the distinction will be marked is by the different language which in one context and the other, be it perhaps a difference appropriate these or dialect, even though the distinction is not designated they cannot these cannot
reality. But this still may ence. For it might
between
by specific descriptive expressions.) The situation we have here is one in which the vocabulary of a given social dimension is grounded in the shape of social practice in this dimension; that is, the vocabulary wouldn't make sense, couldn't be applied sensibly, where this range of practices didn't And yet this range of practices couldn't exist without the prevail. of this or some related vocabulary. There is no simple here. We can speak of mutual if one-way dependence dependence we this points up is the artificiality of the like, but really what distinction between social reality and the language of description of that social reality. The language is constitutive of the reality, is essential to its being the kind of reality it is. To separate the two and distinguish them as we quite rightly distinguish the heav ens from our theories about them is forever to miss the point. prevalence This type of relation has been recently explored, e.g., by John
of style,

Searle,
25
with As Searle points his concept of a constitutive rule. as applying we are to to think of rules induced out,9 normally or not the rule to us whether behavior which could be available existed. Some rules are like this, they are regulative like command ments: But there are other rules, don't take the goods of another. are not so in chess, which the Queen's move e.g., that governing or imagines a state in which then the whole introduced, range of not be. in question, in this case, chess playing, would behavior a wood be of the of There would course, still, pushing activity on a of 8 this but is not board made squares piece around by 8; are Rules of this kind rules. chess any longer. constitutive By separable. they have not If one suspends yet been these rules, contrast
which
again, there are other rules of chess, "j'adoube" when one touches a piece without
are clearly regulative.10
such as that one intending to play
say it,
that this notion of the constitutive be extend I am suggesting That is why I ed beyond the domain of rule-governed behavior. an area word Even in the there where vaguer suggest 'practice'. are no clearly defined rules, there are distinctions between different sorts of behavior the appropriate such that one sort is considered the other for another action or con form for one action or context, or to breaking off certain e.g., doing things amounts saying a or to amounts other making things negotiations, saying doing new offer. rules i.e., rules such But just as there are constitutive could not exist without that the behavior them, and they govern so I am from that behavior, which are in this sense inseparable text; constitutive that there are constitutive distinctions, suggesting in that certain are similarly inseparable, ranges of language which are not without them. practices can reverse this relationship and say that all the institu We we are constituted live which tions and practices by by certain is thus essential to and hence a certain language which distinctions can take voting, a practice which them. We is central to large of institutions in a democratic numbers is essential society. What
J. Cf.
Searle,
Cambridge, 10 New
York,
an Essay Acts: in the Philosophy Speech 33-42. 1969, pp. in Stanley the discussion Must We Mean Cavell, 1969, pp. 21-31.
of What
Language, We Say?
26
TAYLOR CHARLES
to the practice of voting is that some decision or verdict be deliver some criterion a measure of (a man elected, through passed), or what two-thirds majority, (simple majority, preponderance (the votes of the citizens, MPs, ever) out of a set of micro-choices ed delegates). behavior, some such significance to our attached of and counting of marking paper, pieces out into lobbies amounts to voting. From raising hands, walking of voting must be such that cer this it follows that the institution someone that between have application: tain distinctions e.g., or or measure a their of and election, failing passed, being elected, one an a vote which turn in and invalid that between valid passage; a real choice and one which is forced between requires a distinction If there is not no amount or counterfeited. the very in full autonomy, seauian notion sense the enfranchised institution of the vote requires that in some like ours, in a sense recognizably For there to be voting choose. between in men's there must be a distinction self-interpretations and counting is to say that an activity of marking papers s a within to bear intentional which fall certain range description as two intercourse of before we can agree to call it voting, the just men or teams has to bear descriptions of a certain range before we is Or in other words, that some practice will call it negotiation. has or negotiation voting in a society established ing it. Hence and his has to do in part with as appropriate for engaging the vocabulary in it or describ autonomy This and forced choice. For no matter how that each man decide far we move from the Rous
is a certain vision of the agent implicit in these practices to others and to society. saw in connection relation We a picture in our society that it requires with negotiation of the some sense as as and in into willed autonomous, parties entering it certain implicit norms, relations. And this picture carries with such as that of good faith mentioned above, or a norm of rational to one's goals correspond ity, that agreement or the norm of continued freedom of action These as far as attainable, as far as attainable. and relations be seen in
practices require that one's actions the light of this picture and the accompanying norms, good faith, and rationality. in this But men do not see themselves autonomy, nor norms do they understand these in all societies, in all way as we know it, the sense of of autonomy The experience societies.

rational them.
27
are unavailable to action and the satisfactions thereof, The meaning of these terms is opaque to them because they structure of experiential have a different open to them. meaning We can think of the difference between our society and the sim in this, plified version of the traditional Japanese village as consisting two to the of the societies members that the range of meaning open is very different. But what we are dealing with here is not sub can fit into the categorial grid of behavioral which jective meaning science, but rather inter subjective political that the people in our society all or mostly in their heads and subscribe to a given set are and norms implicit in these practices the actors but are out there cannot be conceived which are essentially modes of social relation, actors may all sorts It is not just meanings. have a given set of ideas of goals. not The meanings in the minds of practices but which
just in the practices themselves, as a set of individual actions, of mutual action.
The have of beliefs and attitudes which may be rightly thought of as their individual beliefs and attitudes, even if others share them; to certain policy subscribe they may or or forms of about certain the feel resentment goals theory polity, at certain things, and so on. They bring these with them into their and strive to satisfy them. But what negotiations, they do not is the set con into norms the of and ideas bring negotiations stitutive of negotiation common themselves. These must be the of the society before there can be any question of anyone property or not. are into negotiation not Hence entering subjective they the property of one or some individuals, but rather meanings, are constitutive which of the social intersubjective meanings, matrix in which individuals find themselves and act. The social the "consensus." on heading or of attitude. certain basic matters, But the two are not the same. or not, the condition Whether there is consensus of there being either one or the other is a certain set of common terms of refer ence. A society in which this was lacking would not be a society sense of the term, but several. in the normal some multi Perhaps or multi-tribal states approach racial this limit. Some multi national states are bedevilled cross-purposes, e.g., my by consistent own country. as a convergence But consensus of beliefs or values intersubjective are often action are the background which meanings treated by political scientists under this is meant of beliefs convergence By to
28 is not
TAYLOR CHARLES
the opposite of this kind of fundamental Rather diversity. is a high degree of inter subjective mean of diversity this can go along with Indeed, cleavage. profound are a condition of a certain kind of very intersubjective meanings or the such as was visible in the Reformation, cleavage, profound the opposite And ings. American or splits in left wing Civil War, the parties, where can at both is fever because understand sides fully dispute pitch just the other. of belief or attitude or its absence In other words, convergence a common can be these beliefs can be formulations opposed. is rooted in its in any society in which
language and in which these formulated, of this common Much language institutions
presupposes
it is constitutive and of these institutions and practices; To is of It the put the meanings. practices. part intersubjective of how much from the another way, question people's apart point a common of how much beliefs converge is the question they have these beliefs are of social and political language reality in which cannot be reduced to the first; This second question expressed. beliefs or of converging inter subjective meaning is not a matter values. When we speak of consensus we speak of beliefs and values which could be the property in ter subjective person because We or all; but of a single person, or many, a single of not be the property meanings are rooted in social practice. they can perhaps see this if we envisage the situation in which could This
a practice are the property of single underlying from is what happens when single individuals one society the notions and values of another, interiorize e.g., in missionary Here we have a totally different children schools. are really talking now about subjective beliefs and We situation. the ideas and norms individuals. Whereas social "ideals." The ideas are abstract, they are mere norms are rooted and ideas in the original these society, in their social relations, and are that on the basis of which they can and ideals. formulate opinions We can see this in connection with the example we have been The vision of a society based using all along, that of negotiations. attitudes.
on negotiation in for heavy attack by a growing is coming segment as are norms the of modern of and the attendant youth, rationality This is a dramatic of autonomy. definition failure of "consensus." But this cleavage takes place in the ambit of this inter-subjective

meaning, the social
29
as it is lived in our of negotiation practice have wouldn't the bitter it has if rejection society. quality were not understood in what because it is is rejected common, part of a social practice which we find it hard to avoid, so pervasive out for At the same time there is a reaching is it in our society. The other forms which have still the "abstract" that are subjective is what makes
irrational.
in this sense, the rebellion
quality of ideals which which is, not rooted in practice; look so "unreal" to outsiders, and so
iii
of experiencing Inter subjective action in ways meanings, are con the and which in language society expressed descriptions stitutive of institutions and practices, do not fit into the categorial This allows only for an inter science. grid of mainstream political But social prac is brute data identifiable. subjective reality which are partly constituted tices and institutions which by certain ways We have to under of talking about them are not so identifiable. stand
them.
the
language,
the underlying
meanings,
which
constitute
or prac We can allow, once we accept a certain set of institutions tices as our starting point and not as objects of further questioning, that we can easily take as brute data that certain acts are judged to take place or certain states judged to hold within the semantic field For instance, that someone has voted Liberal, of these practices. then go on to correlate certain or etc.?with this behavior attitudes, subjective meanings?beliefs, its lack. But this means that we give up trying to define further just what and institutions are these practices the meanings are, what which and hence sustain. For these meanings do not they require are or not fit into the grid; are beliefs but values, subjective they the petition. We In order to get at them we have to reality. that social drop premiss reality is made up of brute data For any characterization alone. of the meanings these underlying someone an is to alternative open practices question by offering The negation of this is what was meant as brute interpretation. data. We have to admit that intersubjective social reality has to be as subjective that meanings partly defined in terms of meanings; are not just in causal interaction with a social reality made up of constitutive of social the basic or signed can
30 brute
reality.
CHARLES TAYLOR
data, but that as inter subjective talking they are constitutive of this
here of intersubjective And meanings. of the inter contrasting question subjective meaning as convergence with that of consensus of opinions. But there is another kind of nonsubjective which is also often inad meaning earlier I was discussed the head of "consensus." under In a society equately with a strong web of intersubjective can there be amore meanings, or less powerful mean set of common meanings. I these notions By are not just shared in the sense that of what is significant which everyone
the
We
have
been
has
them,
reference
but
are also common

world. Thus,
in the sense
almost everyone
of being
in
in
our
common
to a certain kind of feminine share a susceptibility society may It may be known beauty, but this may not be a common meaning. to no one, except perhaps market who play on it in their researchers, But the survival of a national advertisements. identity as franco common a is it is not just shar of for Qu?b?cois; phones meaning ed, and not aspiration and all public life in the society. communication, etc. when We can speak of a shared belief, aspiration, there is between the of convergence beliefs, subjective many aspirations, of a common individuals. But it is part of the meaning aspiration, etc. that it be not just shared but part of the belief, celebration, common reference world. Or to put it another way, its being shar ed sustained, as it were, is communally which act, it is a consciousness we on his own, whereas do each is something sharing even if each of us is influenced by the others. are the basis of Common Intersub meanings community. a a common to talk about gives jective meaning people language of certain norms, but understanding does this common reference world celebrations, everybody and shares. feelings. This is is a collective to be shared, but just known is one of the common reference a common its being of all debate, points
reality and a common common meanings only with common contain significant social These
what
are objects
makes community.
actions, in the world that
this phenomenon again, we cannot really understand as convergence of consensus of opinion through the usual definition For what is meant here is something more and value. than con Once vergence. Convergence is what happens when our values are

shared. But what
31
for common meanings is required is that this that this sharing be be part of the common world, are quite But we could also say that common meanings shared. a high degree of for they can subsist with other than consensus, a common meaning comes this is what happens when cleavage; shared value to be lived society. reference tion. understood in a and understood groups by different differently a common because there is the It remains meaning, common is the which celebra purpose, aspiration, point the American is for example But this common in the USA. Way, or freedom as
Such
is differently meaning This the basis of the bitterest different is articulated groups. by are we a also in the this U.S. in and seeing fights society, today. a common is one that very often the meaning say might Perhaps not be cause of the most It thus must bitter lack of consensus. confused Of of opinion, convergence value, attitude. common and inter subjective meanings course, meanings a powerful are closely must net of inter be There interwoven. and the for there to be common meanings; subjective meanings with result of a is the development as people live in com
common meanings of powerful of web meanings greater intersubjective

munity.
common meanings which On the other hand, when wither, we can of dissensus described the kind do earlier, deep through they of tend to grow apart and develop different the groups languages to less share social reality, hence meanings. intersubjective to take our above example there has been a Hence, again, common meaning in our civilization around a certain powerful a central place. vision of the free society in which has bargaining This has helped to entrench the social practice of negotiation which in this in ter subjective meaning. makes us participate But there is to this common meaning challenge today, as we have seen. Should those who object to it really succeed in building up a an alternative there would between those gap society, develop a severe who
ed
remain
the new
in the present
one.
type of society
and those who
had found
as well as intersubjective fall ones, meanings, can net no of social the mainstream find science. through They a are not simply For they set of converging place in its categories. but part of the common world. What the reactions, subjective Common
32
TAYLOR CHARLES
social science lacks is the notion of meaning of mainstream ontology of a subject who can be a as not simply for an individual subject; of the of this possibility, "we" as well as an "I." The exclusion comes once of the from the baleful influence communal, again has to be recon all knowledge tradition for which epistemological on the individual structed from the impressions subject. imprinted this from the hold of these prejudices, But if we free ourselves of human view about the development implausible a aware we before world "we" are the of consciousness; through an "I." Hence we need the distinction between we are through is just shared in the sense that each of us has it in our what is in the common world. But and that which individual worlds, in con is in the common world the very idea of something which seems tradistinction to what is in all the individual worlds it finds in must no now Hence to empiricist opaque epistemology. this results social science. What mainstream is, totally in place be seen. a wildly
Ill i
a social science which wishes Thus, to sum up the last pages: tradition naturally of the empiricist tries to fulfill the requirements as consisting of brute data alone. to reconstruct social reality as identified These data are the acts of people sup (behavior) or by either descriptions by physical interpretation posedly beyond and and practices; defined by institutions clearly descriptions secondly, attitudes,
words, or
reality of individuals' they include the subjective to certain as their attested values, responses by
in some cases their overt non-verbal behavior.
beliefs, forms of as reality ex It in in
What characterized cludes, which
this
by for instance,
excludes is a consideration and common inter subjective an attempt to understand a central part such plays
of
social
negotiation
meanings. our civilization, in fact and both
theory, by probing justificatory it embodies. Such and social relatedness which own and others' action, their of for deal with the meaning agents in which and of the social relations they stand, do not in any sense record brute argument; data, in the sense that this term is being used in this that is, they are in no sense beyond challenge by those
the self-definitions
of agent, other definitions which

who would
33
our interpretations of these meanings. quarrel with in the to the vision I above tried adumbrate Thus, implicit to of notions reference of certain autonomy negotiation practice by and rationality. by those who human But have be challenged this reading will undoubtedly of man, fundamental different conceptions or even by those who the human condition;
motivation, to have greater features of our present other predicament judge we to avoid these have a science and If wish disputes, importance. as is this the verification understood in logical empir by grounded and hope icists, then we have to avoid this level of study altogether a brute data to make of behavior which is with correlation do identifiable. A similar point and shared goes for the distinction between common can hope to iden We if we take these in the
subjective meanings. meanings of individuals tify the subjective meanings sense in which criteria for them in people's there are adequate or or their brute data ^identifiable assent to verbal formulae dissent such sub between But once we allow the distinction behavior. common are shared and which genuine widely jective meanings no we can with indenti make do data brute then longer meanings, can be chal our definitions are in a domain where We fication.
lenged by those with another reading. for the social scientists The profound option of mainstream it inevitable and science makes of knowledge conception empiricist science of political that they should accept the verification model means in This this that entails. and the categorial principles in terms of its intersubjective turn that a study of our civilization level of Rather this whole is ruled out. and common meanings study is made invisible. of different the different practices and view, therefore, societies are not seen as related to different clusters of inter subjective or common meanings, rather, we should them by different of "behavior" be able to differentiate clusters institutions and/or requires behavior subjective meaning. on this view that we which will allow us of different societies The between societies comparison a universal of elaborate vocabulary On the mainstream
to present forms and the different same in the web. practices conceptual Now present day political science is contemptuous of the older a at via of institutions. attempt comparative politics comparison
34 influential school to certain practices, to compare proposes which these practices An of our day has therefore or very general classes
CHARLES TAYLOR
shifted of
comparison and practices, to societies the different in ways according are carried on. Such are the "functions" " of the influential But it is episte "developmental approach." crucial such functions that be identified mologically independently are different of those intersubjective which in different meanings or for otherwise, societies; universal; they will not be genuinely sense will be universal in and loose the that the unilluminating only can be given application in every society but with function-name same term being often and varying, varying meaning?the widely sets of practices and inter differently by different not The danger that such universality subjective meanings. might hold is not even suspected by mainstream scientists since political as that that there is such a level of description they are unaware inter subjective meanings which defines and are convinced that can structures which and the various them functions be perform "glossed" very in terms of brute data behavior. the difference in intersubjective the result of ignoring a can to of be disastrous science meanings politics, comparative in the categories of our all other societies viz., that we interpret own. to American this is what seems to have happened Ironically, identified But political focussed criticized the old institution strongly for its (or Western ethnocentricity comparative politics all to the of understand it bias), proposes society in terms politics as "interest articulation" and "in for instance, of such functions, science. Having aggregation" culture bargaining guaranteed is a theory terest is strongly influenced by the whose definition our is far from being but which of civilization, The not surprising elsewhere. result appropriateness the which of political development Atlantic-type places
achievement. polity at the summit of human political can be said in this area of comparative Much (in politics in a recently published explored by Alasdair Maclntyre terestingly paper) .lla But I would like to illustrate the significance of these
11 lla Mclntyre,
Cf.
"How
and Powell, is a Comparative the Self-Images Against Almond
op. cit. Science of
of
Politics London,
the Age,
Possible?," 1971.
in Alasdair

two rival approaches in connection with This is the question of politics. 12
ii
35
problem "legiti
another of what
common is called
area
macy."
fact, with which politics has been concerned that some societies since at least Plato, enjoy an easier, more on cohesion which relies less the use of force than spontaneous It has been an important others. of political question theory to understand what underlies this difference. others, Aris Among de have totle. Machiavelli, dealt with it. Tocqueville Montesquieu, mainstream scientists this approach Contemporary political use The of the word here question with the concept "legitimacy." can be easily understood. are more societies which Those spon can a sense to cohesive be of greater thought enjoy taneously "Legitimacy" of the state or polity, authority ever we conceive it can only be attributed of this legitimacy, to a a of surrounding number conceptions?e.g., polity in the light of from their will, that it provides men that it emanates freedom, that it secures them order, the rule of law, or that it is founded on or commands obedience These by its superior qualities. on are all such that definitions of what is conceptions they rely or men some or in in for significant general particular society tradition, of paradigmatic definitions which cannot circumstances, meaning some as where Even of brute data. these terms identifiable be an terms in definition" be of brute given might "operational term like "freedom" for instance, can be defined in terms data?a of the would whereby absence not ? la Hobbes?this definition legal restriction, and full force the in of the that term, carry particular for men. it could be considered significant of to the empiricist this paradigm, of such a term is labelled "evaluative" heterogeneous from the aspect of and is thought But aspect. "descriptive" latter among legitimacy has been shifted. their members. But the application of the term is a term in which we discuss the its right to our allegiance. How
It is an obvious
According the meaning to be utterly

12 "legitimacy"
Maclntyre's from
article a different,
also
contains
an
although
I think
interesting related, angle.
discussion
of
36 this analysis is far from firmly established; the empiricist paradigm of knowledge itself to this paradigm bound up. A challenge to meneutical is also a challenge science "descriptive" and which "evaluative" and the
CHARLES TAYLOR
no more with so in fact than
which it is closely in the name of a her between of entire
the distinction
conception
it. goes with "Wertfreiheit" In any case, whether it is "evaluative" because with definitions of meaning, applied in connection can be used in the description not a word which to the conceptions according as a description be used only into but consideration or feelings the opinions scientific of mainstream social
or can only be is "legitimate" of social science. reality It can
of subjective meaning. enters What is thus not the legitimacy of a polity of its member individuals concerning
between different societies in their The differences its legitimacy. are to be manner of spontaneous and sense of community cohesion members the beliefs and feelings of their between by correlations towards them on one hand and the prevalence of certain indices of stability in them on the other. brute data identifiable 13 Thus Robert Dahl in Modern Political Analysis (31-2) speaks for their in which of the different ways leaders gain "compliance" more The citizens because of "internal rewards policies. comply understood and deprivations," and deprivations." mate, the But less leaders if citizens will bind need believe "external rewards a government is legiti them to obey it; they will be hence government will have to use
then their conscience
if they disobey; internally punished to use less external resources, force. including in Political of Seymour Less crude is the discussion Lipset 14 on same it is founded the But basic Man ideas, viz. (chap. 3). as is defined correlated with that legitimacy subjective meaning stability.
to of the system the capacity involves "Legitimacy that the maintain institu belief the and existing political engender ones for the tions are the most (64). appropriate society" in a discussion of the determinants is engaged of Lipset out ones two He in modern in singles important stability polities. this chapter, effectiveness and legitimacy. "Effectiveness means
13 Englewood
Series. 14 New York,
Cliffs,
1963.
1963, Foundation
Page references are
of Modern
to this
Political
Science
edition.

actual
37
satisfies the the extent to which the system performance, as most of the population and such of government functions see or as the armed forces business within it groups big powerful we one to with factor which do have Thus has them" (loc. cit.). basic has actually done; and the the government reality, what objective "While other which has to do with subjective beliefs and "values." is is primarily evaluative" effectiveness instrumental, legitimacy the stage is set by a distinc Hence from the beginning (Zoc. cit.). think and feel about it. social reality and what men tion between sees two of crisis of that modern types Lipset legitimacy more or concerns societies have affronted less well. the status One of major conservative institutions which of modern the development concerns the degree to which political groups, handled industrial may be under democracies. threat The from second
all political groups have access to the some traditional the first head, Thus, process. or clericals, have been such as landed aristocracy roughly in a society like France, and have remained from alienated under
the democratic
the traditional willing formed managed
in England ; whereas system for decades afterwards classes were more gently handled, themselves were and have been slowly integrated to compromise and trans into the new order. Under the second head, some societies
to integrate the working class or bourgeoisie into the an at in whereas others been have political process early stage, they a out and till have quite recently, kept consequently, developed sense from the system, have tended to adopt of alienation deep to instability. contributed and have generally ideologies, on these two of the determinants of a society's performance or not it is forced to affront the different conflicts heads is whether of democratic all at once or one at a time. Another development extremist important This determinant
One
of legitimacy is effectiveness. sees stability as approach which partly the result of legit as turn in and these imacy beliefs, resulting partly from the way the access to of different groups fare, seems life status, welfare, political at first blush eminently sensible and wull designed to help us under stand the history of the last century or two. But this approach has no place for a and common meanings study of the inter subjective which whether are constitutive of modern civilization. And we may doubt we can understand or the cohesion of modern societies their present crisis if we leave these out of account.
38
CHARLES TAYLOR
of the working of the allegiance class Let us take the winning twen and the in nineteenth to the new industrial regimes early a matter This is far from being tieth century. simply or even of the speed with which this class was significantly perhaps most of the and the effectiveness the political process access to the of of the the consideration granting regime. an as be variable may misleading. independent political process invited by historians It is not just that we often find ourselves integrated into Rather in particular in terms of cohesion countries as of Methodism in early nineteenth other factors, such the impact 15 or the draw of Germany's (Elie Hal?vy) newly century England to the These factors could be assimilated nationalism. successful as or classed social scientist's "ideologies" widely grid by being to account for class
held "value-systems" or some other such concatenations of sub
in account "ideology" societies has been that ing for the cohesion the vision of society as a large-scale of the society of work, enter are in which of different functions prise production widely integrat a vision of society in which ed into interdependence; economic as it is not only in Marxism are considered as primary, relations a sense not with but above all with in the Marxism) (and really that society in all engaged (to use Arendt's language),16 to in what is life and far-reach indispensable happiness producing labor ing interdependence. This is the "ideology" integration directed polemically England campaigns with was of the working the which class the has frequently presided into industrial democracies, over the tradition of Classical Utilitarianism. between is a fundamental solidarity In line with all members for they are this vision of there
jective meaning. But perhaps
the most
such important of industrial democratic
at first
against anti-Corn
solidarity. the reason for putting But, of course, "ideology" above is that this definition of things, which has been well
15 16
span/who social cohesion
of Joseph then and
in classes, e.g., "unproductive" the Law League, and later with Chamberlain ("when Adam delved and Eve but later as a support for
the gentleman"),
in quotes integrated
Histoire The
du
Human
au xixe anglais Peuple New Condition, York,
si?cle, 1959.
Paris,
1913.

with
39
of social life as based on negotiation, cannot the conception social science, as beliefs in the terms of mainstream be understood For the great and "values" held by a large number of individuals. a of is not set of matrix labor ideas in people's just interdependent heads but is an important aspect of the reality which we live in And at the same time, these ideas are embedded in society. of it; that is, we wouldn't this matrix in that they are constitutive be able to live in this type of society unless we were imbued with could call forth the discipline and these ideas or some others which co-ordination needed voluntary have civilizations All industrial traditional for they sustained, peasant populations an require monotonous this kind of economy. a from the huge wrench required on which they have been imposed; level of disciplined unprecedented to operate
modern
entirely effort, long hours unpunctuated by any as that In the end such of seasons or festivals. rhythm, meaningful a the idea of making this way of life can only be accepted when more than that of with significance just avoiding living is endowed starvation; Now societies, relations subjective countries. that and this this it is in the civilization of work of labor. is only one aspect of modern on negotiation the with and willed based society along common other and inter and (in Anglo-Saxon countries), in have which different different importance meanings not to say it is that is certainly implausible My point civilization some
in explaining the integration of the importance industrial democratic societv. But it can working* class in modern As such it can meaning. only be called a cluster of intersubjective and an not come into the purview of mainstream science; political it has when discussing like Lipset cannot take it into consideration this very problem. fact doesn't such a massive But, of course, escape notice. rather is that it is re-interpreted. What And what has happens author generally happened society structure is that has of been the interdependent productive science, and but negotiating not as one rather recognized by political
as the inescapable it no longer this guise to the middle of universal structures
retreats role and
among others, meaning intersubjective of social action as such. In background need be an object of study. it Rather its general outline takes the distance, where (it is hoped) and this identifiable, which actions for any
within framework, will be brute data
40
CHARLES TAYLOR
The view is then that the political actions of society at any time. as variants of the processing men in all societies can be understood is an important part of our political life. The of "demands" which our to of the intersubjective meanings inability recognize specificity of North is thus inseparably linked with the belief in the universality or so which vitiates Atlantic behavior of "functions" much types comparative contemporary politics. The notion is that what politics is the is about perennially or the of effec of and differences, symbolic adjustment production on the basis of demand and support "inputs." The tive "outputs" of work is of the civilization rise of the in ter subjective meaning seen as the increase of correct perception of the political process and Powell introduce Thus Almond at the expense of "ideology." to describe "the emergence the concept of 'political secularization' to .lr A secular of a pragmatic, orientation" (58) politics empirical political culture an "ideological" is opposed not only to a traditional one, but also to which is characterized culture, by "an inflexible to information" and "fails of closed life, conflicting political image with full attitudes associated to develop the open, bargaining a here is that The clear secularization" (61). understanding on one less which secularized culture is illusion, depends essentially infected with culture the "false use a term (to
which
sees things as they are, which is not or ideological of traditional consciousness" is not in the mainstream which vocabulary).
iii
as resulting of work, This way of looking at the civilization from the retreat of illusion before the correct perception of what the is bound with and thus up really is, closely politics perennially of science mainstream and its political epistemological premisses resultant civilization's approach, civilization when we The the rise
17 Op.
inability
to recognize
the historical But
meanings. intersubjective in visible the attempts already and its relation to others, for its present
specificity the weakness
of
this
of this
try to account strains in contemporary society, the breakdown into which is translated of deep alienation,
to explain the rise of this even more painful becomes even crisis. malaise, of civility, even more
cit.

destructive science.
41
of our social action, tend to shake the basic categories was quite unpredicted It is not just that such a development saw in the rise of affluence the cause rather by this science, which a reduction of the bargaining of a further entrenching of culture, an in short "the end of increase of tolerance, irrational cleavage, we shall see below, cannot be a goal as For prediction, ideology." of social mainstream science as it is of natural science. It is rather that this to explain this breakdown. science hasn't the categories It is forced to look on extremism either as a bargaining gambit of the a hearing. to ante in force the order raising desperate, deliberately can of it the the rebellion Or, alternatively, recognize novelty are that demands the hypothesis heightened being by accepting or else of "expectations," made on the system owing to a revolution or aspirations which hitherto had no But these new desires or aspira process. that is, they tions must be in the domain of individual psychology, must be such that their arousal and satisfaction is to be understood rather than in terms of the inter in terms of states of individuals in which they live. For these latter have no subjective meanings to the eruption of new place in the bargaining desires which thus cannot in the categories of the mainstream, place a genuine historical accommodate psychology. extreme protests and acts of rebellion But some of the more in as bargaining our society cannot be interpreted in the gambits name of any demands, old or new. These can only be interpreted of our social science as a return to within the accepted framework and hence as irrational. Now in the case of some of the ideology, more bizarre and bloody forms of protest, there will be little be irrational all but their will pro judged disagreement; by they can But within this the accepted categories tagonists. irrationality terms of in individual is the it understood be psychology; only public eruption of private pathology; a malady of society itself, a malaise
meanings.18
it cannot which
be understood its constitutive
as
afflicts
18 Thus Lewis Feuer

attempts student turn Yet to account in for the the uprising is rooted himself political in terms in his
in The Conflict of Generations, New York, 1969,
in the Berkeley of social reality" "misperception of a generational in which conflict (pp. 466-470), of adolescence and adulthood. psychology attaining first notes chapter a phenomenon the comparative which dates of self recency from the post
Feuer
defining
generations,
42
TAYLOR CHARLES
for No one can claim to begin to have an adequate explanation our is which in these major civilization But undergoing. changes contrast to the incapacity remains within the of a science which a hermeneutical science of man which has a categories, accepted a can at least of begin to meaning intersubjective place for study the discipline which was integral to Plainly to fail. is beginning of work and bargaining The structures of this civilization, work, bargaining, interdependent to change mutual of individual ends, are beginning adjustment explore fruitful the civilization avenues. to be felt not as normal their meaning and are beginning for many, And yet we are but as hateful or empty. and best suited to man, all caught in these intersubjective insofar as we live in meanings as it this society, and in a sense more and more ail-pervasively our of Hence the of virulence tension the and progresses. critique is always in some real sense a self-rejection (in a society which never old socialist that the was). way opposition has this set of meanings gone sour? Plainly, we have Why at their face value. to accept that they are not to be understood to be sufficient culture claimed The free, productive, bargaining it did for man. If it was not, then we have to assume that while com for us which it also had other meanings hold our allegiance, this allegiance and which manded have now gone. This is the starting point of a set of hypotheses which attempt in order to make our present and future intel think that the productive, culture bargaining might ligible. no was there offered in the past common meanings (even though a hence basis for community, and place for them in its philosophy), to redefine our past We which were essentially its being in the process of build linked with men see as breaking with who It linked could the themselves ing. a new in for to instance. all But in build America, past happiness to be attained the notion of a horizon that future is built; essentials social (as against production by future greater on in contemporary America. the absurd verges transformation) Suddenly the
Napoleonic shift, which I believe psycho-history, intersubjective adumbrated
era after have
(p. to to
But 33). all underlies take a us
attempt adequate the Berkeley rising the ambit of beyond of A the intrication of Erikson. of this variant
an
to explain and many individual
this
historical would to and' been
others, psychology conflict has
study
in
meanings. the work
psychological form of study
of Erik

horizon which was which dreams
man as a
43
essential would
has collapsed, enment-based

only sustain
sense of meaningful purpose that like so many other Enlight the free, productive, society can bargaining to the show
not as a reality.
goal,
quali for their children. All the require conditions tatively different ments of a humanly acceptable identity can be met by this predica a it in relation to the past, ment, (one soars above it but preserves to the social world folkloric memory), world (the interdependent to the earth (the raw material of free, productive which men), to the future and ones own death (the everlasting awaits shaping), to the absolute monument in the lives of prosperous children), (the absolute values of freedom, integrity, dignity). at some point the children will be unable to sustain this This effort has placed them in a forward thrust into the future. they are unable to reach and private haven of security, within which recover touch with the great realities: their parents have only a But to the future; have been oriented wholly negated past, lives which one can only rather the social world is distant and without shape; it by taking one's place in the future-oriented But this now seems without any sense; productive juggernaught. as is therefore experienced the relation to the earth as raw material a valid to but the relation the recovery of empty and alienating, insert oneself into thing once lost; and there is no relation to the are caught in the web of meanings which have us. and absolute for Hence dead future, world, earth, gone past, and what must arise is an are in some way or another occluded; of crisis frightening proportions. identity earth is the hardest absolute where we are mainly two hypotheses focussed on the crisis in U.S. and they would civilization, perhaps help account for the fact that the U.S. is in some sense going first through this crisis of all that because it most Atlantic nations; is the is, not, affluent, only it is has been more fully based on the civilization but more because These of work than European countries common traditional meanings. But they might also help us who retained something why of more is
in terms of look at this development sense of building the civilization their future through as having sustain men as long as they see themselves a millenial and of in order to hardship past injustice
Or we
can
identity. of work broken create
A can with
to understand
alienation
44 most affluent severe among groups societies. which have been
TAYLOR CHARLES
but marginal in the greatest strain in some ways their identity was in the U.S., and the community have had
bargaining in living in this civilization while to it. Such are blacks antithetical
These
of French-speaking groups immigrant selves to surmount
For many each in different ways. Canadians, the strain was also great, but they forced them the obstacles, and the new identity is sealed in the blood of the old, as it were. not or could not succeed But for those who would in thus on the a but of life strain lived themselves, transforming always
the breakdown of the central, powerful is the identity a can as a to be thought of liberation It trigger deep turn-over. but at the same time it is deeply unsettling, because the basic are are not yet and of there former life being changed, parameters defensive, the new identity. has to be made between (rather the first social compact) compact to and no one knows where these groups and those they live with,
start.
to live a new and definitions images fully acceptable a new where In a sense we are in a condition social
some hypotheses I have presented which may turn and out to be with indeed appear very speculative; they may even without out foundation, much But their aim was interest. we can illustrative. claim is that mainly My principal only come In the last pages, to grips with of breakdown this phenomenon by trying to under the common and inter subjective stand more clearly and profoundly we in of been which the have For it is meanings society living. no longer hold us, and to understand this change we these which have an adequate grasp of these as cannot do long as we remain within for it will not recognize social science, and is forced to look at the central ones to have the meanings. the ambit But this we of mainstream
they were Breakdown
background inescapable in political is thus inexplicable terms; be explained of irrationality which must ultimately illness. psychological Mainstream above the science may thus venture but after its own hypotheses,
intersubjective meaning, of our society as though of all political action. it is an outbreak by some form of
into the area explored by the fashion, by forcing an facts of the into of individual identity grid psycho-historical as subjective. in short, by re-interpreting all meanings psychology,

The result might
45
be a psycholobical theory of emotional malad of family background, to features certain traced justment, perhaps and the of the authoritarian the theories to personality analogous or a no social be would But this California F-scale. longer political to the understand We would be giving up the attempt theory. inter subjective change in social reality at the level of its constitutive
meanings.
IV
within
It can be argued then, that mainstream social science is kept are rooted certain limits by its categorial which principles of empiricism; and secondly, in the traditional that epistemology are a severe handicap and prevent us from coming these restrictions
to grips with of our day which should be the important problems to need We of science. the bounds of a go beyond object political to one which would science based on verification study the inter common in social and embedded meanings subjective reality. in the sense that has But this science would be hermeneutical not be founded on brute in this paper. It would developed be readings of meanings, data would and data; its most primitive have the three properties mentioned its object would the above: or are a a are moreover field in for fields; meanings subject they are partially constituted which which meanings by self-definitions, can thus be re are in this sense already interpretations, and which been In our case, the expressed or made explicit by a science of politics. or a be but the subject may community; society intersubjective as we saw, embody a certain self-definition, a vision of meanings, is that of the society or com the agent and his society, which
munity.
the proponents of the verifica has no have a science which in a brute data, which relies on readings, then it cannot but move mean A hermeneutical of the intersubjective circle. given reading seem or practices, may institutions ings of a society, or of given or the sense of these practices well it makes because founded, But then the difficulties which tion model foresee will arise. If we that it does of that society. But the conviction development sense of this history itself is founded on futher related read make is I said above on the identity-crisis which Thus, what ings.
46
TAYLOR CHARLES
sense and holds together generated by our society makes only if one accepts this reading of the intersubjective of our meanings one of if the this rebellion and accepts reading society, against our the in terms of identity (sc. society by many young people reading . sense so two make These that in a crisis) together, readings as a whole the explanation reposes in their turn are strengthened readings sense
whole.
on the readings, and the as a by the explanation
or even more, seem implausible, But if these readings if they no verification our interlocutor, are not understood there is by on. We can only continue to procedure which we can fall back we an are in circle. offer interpretations; interpretative But the ideal of a science of verification is to find an appeal beyond differences in discovery, but of interpretation. should not have Insight will always be useful to play any part in establishing ideal can be said to have been met a hermeneutic science cannot but one have the to make
and sensibility to be able and comprehend the necessary In physics readings by which we can explain the reality concerned. we might argue that if someone does not accept a true theory, then either he has not been shown evidence (brute data) enough or cannot not he is understand and yet available), enough (perhaps understanding But in the sciences of man con language. apply some formalized of a true or illuminat ceived as hermeneutical, the nonacceptance come of neither these, indeed is unlikely to be from ing theory may due to either of these, but rather from a failure to grasp the mean ing field in question, of this field. an inability to make and understand readings
the truth of its findings. This our natural sciences. But by on It that insight. requires rely
In other words, in a hermeneutical science, a certain measure of insight is indispensable, and this insight cannot be communicat of brute data, or initiation in modes ed by the gathering of formal some or combination of It these. is unformalizable. reasoning to the authoritative this is a scandalous con But result according is shared even by many ception of science in our tradition, which are highly of those who of mainstream critical of the approach or or science. For it means that sociology, political psychology, a can this is not of their anyone engage, study in which regardless that some claims level of insight; of the form: "if you don't

understand, then your some claims intuitions are at
47
are blind or fault, some be that justified; inadequate," differences will be nonarbitrable by further evidence, but that each side can only make appeal to deeper insight on the part of the other. over another will thus consist of one position in The superiority of this form will this, one's that own one can understand the more position adequate stand and that of one's opponent, but not the other way can only have It goes without saying that this argument from
around. weight
a gap in intuitions, as it were, of the hermeneutical is the other side, circle. But which the situation is graver than this; for this gap is bound up with our in politics and life. divergent options a some cannot understand We of the kind of gap when speak as underlying which a certain others are proposing self-definition Thus some positivistically-minded society or set of institutions. will of identity-theory thinkers find the language quite opaque; and some thinkers will not recognize does not fit any theory which with the definitions of empiricism. categorial presuppositions are not only important to us as scientists who some, self But are trying As men we
for those in the superior position. science encounters Thus, a hermeneutical
social reality. distant, perhaps we are and beings, partly what we are in virtue of which we have accepted, however we have come the self-definitions we understand and what ones we self-definitions by them. What is closely linked with the self-definitions which don't understand, we are. one too to is to If it constitute that what say simple help an "ideology" one subscribes which it is understands to, only hard to deny that we have great difficulty nevertheless grasping are terms structure the world in ways which whose definitions own. our with different from, incompatible utterly different just divide different fundamental positions, are inextricably in life. The practical and the theoretical options a certain ex that to not be understand It here. may just joined one to it has one's intuitions, may be that one sharpen planation not in has to change one's orientation?if adopting another orienta a own in way which allows for greater tion, at least in living one's Hence the gap theoretical it also tends to divide of others. comprehension as they are hermeneutical in the sciences of man insofar Thus, to "I don't there can be a valid response in intuitions doesn't
to understand are self-defining
48 understand" tions,"
any
CHARLES TAYLOR
which takes but more radically
to a value-free
the form, "change

or
not
only
yourself."
"develop your intui This puts an end to

science of man. A
aspiration
"ideology-free"
of we are some of when "illusion" with speak dealing than error, error which in a sense builds thing of greater substance a counterfeit own. errors of its But of of reality interpretation illusion. We are also self-definitions which of those who meaning, interpret and inform their lives, are more hence than errors in this sense: they are sustained of which by certain practices they are constitutive. to single out as examples It is not implausible two rampant illusions One is that of the proponents of the can but either recognize nothing bargaining bargain or madness in those who rebel against this society. ing gambits Here the error is sustained of the bargaining by the practices a of and given semblance culture, reality by the refusal to treat any present society. society who protests reality on other of terms; The illusion. it hence acquires the more substantive is provided second example by much in our society which in desperate search to see its situation in that of life purports in our
is inseparable from an examination study the options between which men must choose. that we can speak here not only of error, but This means of the science
of man
of
"revolutionary" activity for an alternative mode of an Andean guerilla or Chinese peasants. Lived out, this passes error to tragic illusion. One illusion from the stage of laughable the other can cannot recognize the possibility of human variation, Both make not see any limits to man's itself. ability to transform a valid
science of man impossible. In face of all this, we might be so scandalized by the prospect we want of such a hermeneutical to will that science, go back to the our understanding can we not of model. take verification Why as as the logical empiricists part of the logic of discovery, meaning and still found our science suggest for our unformalizable insights, Our insightful understanding our of then serve to intersubjective meanings society will fruitful hypotheses, elaborate but the proof of these puddings will remain in the degree they enable us to predict. The answer is that if the epistemological views underlying the are right, such exact prediction science of interpretation is radically of the on the exactness of our predictions?

impossible.
mentalness.
49
order of funda
This,
for three
reasons
of ascending
one is the well-known "open system" predicament, cannot human shared by life and meteorology, that we shield a of human the psychological, certain domain events, economic, to external is from it delineate interference; impossible political, The first
a closed system.
men
is that ifwe are to understand second, more fundamental, a we cannot achieve the degree of science interpretation, by of a science based on brute data. of fine exactitude The data of The science admit of measurement to virtually any degree of cannot be judged in this interpretations nuances of interpretation different may
natural
exactitude. But different At the same time way. in some circumstances, lead to different predictions and these dif create futures. ferent outcomes may widely eventually varying Hence than easy to be wide of the mark. it is more reason for the imposibility But the third and most fundamental of hard is that prediction in his self-definition man
With is a self-defining animal. man in what is, such that go changes changes But the conceptual in different terms. he has to be understood con can and frequently do produce in human history mutations terms where the are that webs which is, incommensurable, ceptual stratum of expressions. to a common in relation can't be defined in our society and in of bargaining The entirely different notions in ones provide an example. some primitive Each will be glossed in have each which terms of practices, ideas institutions, society to them in the other. corresponding nothing in the natural sciences is bound up The success of prediction with the fact that all states of the system, past and future, can be as values, say, of the same in the same range of concepts, described can be all future states of the solar system as ones in the of Newtonian are, characterized, past language of exact This is far from being a sufficient condition mechanics. one a it in this that is but sense, necessary only if past prediction, net can one the same conceptual under and future are brought variables. Hence understand the states of the latter as some function of the states of of man by the reality. the former, and hence predict. This conceptual unity is vitiated fact of conceptual innovation which
in the sciences
in turn alters human
50
TAYLOR CHARLES
The very terms in which the future will have to be characterized if we are to understand are not all available it properly to us at Hence we have such radically unpredictable events as the present. culture of youth today, the Puritan of the sixteenth rebellion and of Soviet society, etc. the development centuries, And thus, it is much easier to understand after the fact than it is to predict. Human science is largely ex post understanding. Or some often one has the sense of impending of change, big re but is powerless to make clear what it will consist in: organization, one lacks the vocabulary. But there is a clear assymetry here, which to be) in natural there is not science, where (or not supposed events are said to be predicted from the theory with exactly the ease with which one explains past events and by exactly the same process. In human science this will never be the case. Of course, we strive ex post to understand and the changes, to do this we try to develop a language in which we can situate the webs of concepts. incommensurable We see the rise of Puritanism, as a shift in man's stance to the sacred; for instance, and thus, we a language in which we can express both stances?the earlier one and the Puritan mediaeval Catholic rebellion?as "glosses" on in which term. We this fundamental thus have a language to talk have of the transition. of the sacred category came the shift which human religion the detachment think how we acquired it. This general is acquired not only from our experience of in the Reformation, but from the study of in general, and with including religion, primitive came with which would It be con secularization. But same seventeenth
but unthinkable, that amediaeval Catholic could have this a for that matter two Puritan. These conception?or protagonists a language for each other: of condemnation "heretic," only had "idolator." The place for such a concept was pre-empted by a After a big change has happened, certain way of living the sacred. ceivable, to try to under it is possible the trauma has been resorbed, one now has available the new stand it, because the language, But hard before transformed world. meaning prediction just one a laughing makes stock. Really to be able to predict the future and would would so clearly the human condition that one explicited trans all and have innovation cultural pre-empted already This is hardly in the bounds of the possible. formation. be to have Sometimes men show amazing prescience: the myth of Faust,

for instance, which era. There modern
51
is treated several times at the beginning of the is a kind of prophesy here, a premonition. But these bursts of foresight is that they see through what characterizes a glass darkly, for they see in terms of the old language: Faust sells his soul to the devil. They are in no sense hard predictions. Human There It is inescapably historical. science looks backward. ar are thus good grounds both in epistemological for opting for hermeneut and in their greater fruitfulness of man. But we breaks with cannot hide from ourselves held how certain commonly can not measure We notions
guments ical sciences
tradition. such sciences we cannot of a science of verification: the requirements We have to them their accept that capacity. judge by predictive are on not which all is do what founded intuitions and share, they worse are closely bound up with our funda that these intuitions mental cannot be "wertfrei'; sciences These options. they are against moral understood. century prosecution requires a high a freedom from illusion, in the sense of degree of self-knowledge, error which is rooted and expressed in one's way of life; for our is rooted in our own self-definitions, hence incapacity to understand in what we are. To say this is not to say anything new: Aristotle Finally, their successful ly a similar point in Book I of the Ethics. But it is still radical to and unassimilable mainstream of modern the shocking McGill University sciences in a more radical sense than the eighteenth
this option greatly our about scientific
makes
science.

Charles Taylor Intepretation and The Sciences of Man

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles Taylor Intepretation and The Sciences of Man

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpretation and the Sciences of Man Author(s): Charles Taylor Reviewed work(s): Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol.

AND THE SCIENCES OFMAN INTERPRETATION

Cf. Cf. Cf.

e.g., Paul e.g.,

Wahrheit Gadamer, De l'interpr?tation, Erkenntnis und

4 claims of the order

this distinction may no clear, unambig what is said and its

I hope to return of man.

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

any anchor object of

must thus have: interpretation or by a for which is its expression,

AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION OF MAN

carry with for instance,

it the certainty of the undeniable. our full understanding of the whole

given data, as to distinguish the basis of them. The inferences be beyond

of brute "brute v. 18, pp. may

Facts," Cambridge, contrasted i.e., would

Analysis, 1969, to what which an

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

the epistemological must be susceptible reality so science understood. by

stance goes to under From this

is that the issue can be fruitfully posed as I began it to outline interpretation

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

on those which "determinable" the activity

The vocabulary defining meaning?words that describing linked with "attractive"?is

like "ter feeling?

OF MAN AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION

AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION OF MAN

AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION OF MAN

In politics, centration straction

to be pretty and where ed with; simple devices, the motion?

OF MAN AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION

20 But how did we

propositions? values, vision and lenged,

H. McClosky, Political Science

Ideology 1964, pp.

OF MAN AND THE SCIENCES INTERPRETATION

ally-defined tion) . Now there this notion ways

of objections one might behavior;

in good negotiating a new offer, etc.

(bad) faith, concluding In other more jargon

Gabriel a Developmental text here and

Politics: Comparative references in my

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

Origins is also of the

Stan of Modern Japan. in other found traditional Indonesian village.

24 gloss is not just a difference of vocabulary, but

reality. But this still may ence. For it might

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

such as that one intending to play

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

just in the practices themselves, as a set of individual actions, of mutual action.

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

in this sense, the rebellion

are also common

actions, in the world that

AND THE SCIENCES OF MAN INTERPRETATION

common meanings of powerful of web meanings greater intersubjective

and those who

beliefs, forms of as reality ex It in in

What characterized cludes, which

meanings. our civilization, in fact and both

of agent, other definitions which