Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MAVE Dissertation,
Lancaster University
2001
Peter Scheers
---
Abstract
---
Introduction (p. 4)
Many students of hermeneutics are radical textualists. At one time I have myself been
a hermeneutical textualist, reading books about interpretation in relation to theory of
literary criticism which itself dealt with learned responses to literary texts. I did not
care so much for the novels as such, but was all the more thrilled about the
complexity and eminence of those books about books about books. In this period I
was of course not involved with something like philosophy of nature - I was an
unambiguous case of 'city philosophy'. Since that time, however, I gradually came to
issues beyond text and interpretation, namely perfectionism and philosophy of work.
And much later, I decided to get more involved with issues of nature and
environmental philosophy. Quite unexpectedly perhaps, this concern for nature
pushed me back to the problematics of signs and interpretations, but this time in
quite another sense. The human project of finding meaning in nature is itself a
fundamental hermeneutic issue, not only in the sense that we are confronted with
complexities of human interpretation, but also because there may be original
processes of interpretation (and semiosis) beyond human selves.
This interpretational beyond is exactly what interests me in this essay, notably
in connection to the realm of animal being.
One of my main convictions is that there are specific lives of meaning within the
realm of animal being, and that we should attempt to give human expression to this
non-human creation of original meaning. There is in fact moral urgency to do so. The
way one talks about varieties of otherness deeply influences the moral/immoral
character of one's action toward these varieties. The denial of meaning gives free play
to destruction or transformation of otherness. Once 'meaning' is acknowledged (not
our sense of meaning, but meaning beyond us) then it suddenly becomes much more
difficult (albeit of course not impossible) not to turn toward moral reception and
action. Perhaps we can say that the willingness to recognize original meaning in
otherness is itself already an essential part of being moral.
The process of finding meaning in animals is not only a structural moral issue, it
is also automatically a hermeneutic question. I would go so far as to say that every
process of meaning in animals, as it is the case in humans, is interpretationally
constituted. Without considering animals as interpreters, we would simply be left
with an empty box: animal meaning would then mean nothing at all. Animals make
their way in the 'world'. Their experience of being is exactly a collection of points of
meaning constructed by way of interpretational action. This is the claim to which this
essay attempts to give some (historical) content.
I do not have the ambition to come up with a full story, but to offer at least a
serious response to radical humanist hermeneutics. I hope to walk a few steps into
the direction of a zoo-hermeneutics.(1) These steps are as follows: After a general
articulation of the main points of human hermeneutics and some of its fundamental
extensions (an articulation which will provide the reader with some insight into
interpretation in its common anthropological context), I will tune in with some
possibilities for extension beyond the human realm as they seem to be available
within the hermeneutical tradition as officially conceived.(2) At least three moments
of extension offer themselves for further study: the metaphor of the book of nature,
hermeneutics as Lebensphilosophie (Wilhelm Dilthey), and last but not least Martin
Heidegger's words on animal being. The central question here is whether the
hermeneutical tradition is capable in these moments of going beyond humanity and
culture. I think only Heidegger, quite ambiguously, leads us toward animal
interpretation. To give animal interpretation better chances and more benevolent
appreciation it is necessary to step outside the field of official hermeneutics and to
visit the Umweltlehre of Jakob von Uexküll. Uexküll develops a theory which, I
believe, very fairly can be characterized as zoo-hermeneutics (at least, this will be my
claim). Subsequently, with an eye on Uexküll in combination with the already
received hermeneutical themes, basic points of zoo-hermeneutics can be given more
explicit formulation. I will propose Uexküll as a fertile opportunity to start up a
systematic hermeneutics of animal being. The conclusion of this essay will bring me
to some suggestions for further exploration of zoo-hermeneutics.
---
Chapter I - Anthropo-hermeneutics
---
To be able to discuss animal interpretation as it may be suggested or not suggested in
official hermeneutic moments, it is quite necessary first to understand the basics of
interpretation as an anthropological concept. This basics will already involve us in a
politics of extension(remaining, however, in the human realm). Only afterwards is it
appropriate to read through certain hermeneutic moments where animal
interpretation appears to be implied. It is clear, namely, that animal interpretation
involves a specific extension of the concept of interpretation as it functions in the
realm of human beings. To understand the validity and quality of that extension
involves structural awareness about human interpretation.
In a first step, it is indeed important to clarify the concept of interpretation in its
basic anthropological setting, at least as it is conceived within the hermeneutical
tradition. Anthropo-hermeneutics can be divided in two fields. On the one hand we
have hermeneutics of texts - the most intense version of anthropo-hermeneutics. On
the other, there is existential hermeneutics - a broadened, and in that sense more
reaxed, form of anthropo-hermeneutics which takes us beyond the 'library', so to
speak.
1.1. Text-hermeneutics
One should not fail to remark that existential hermeneutics as such already implies a
preliminary version of hermeneutics of animal being, namely insofar such a
hermeneutics could be considered a theory about human interpretation of animals. If
indeed everything we see is interpreted, then our observations of animals are of
course also interpretational, according to rules already outlined (hermeneutical circle,
model of the text). In this general and perhaps thin sense existential hermeneutics can
immediately harbor a hermeneutics of animal being (which would then be a
'regional' hermeneutical study of the particularities of human interpretation of
animals). Of course, most hermeneuticists - existential or textual - do not really care
about this animal realm. While offering an extension of the field of interpretation
beyond strict textualism, existential hermeneutics remains focussed on affairs of
human expression and meaning. There is virtually no conception of animals as being
themselves interpreters, even if there is a certain logic in this extension (If we
interpret objects in the world beyond textualism, why would animals not have
something like this? Do they not have to find their way in situations and experiences?
Can one think animal life without a process of 'finding a way'? And can one
subsequently define this process as something non-interpretational?)
However, it is fruitful to take with us the problematics of human interpretation
of animals as a first, incomplete hermeneutics of animal being. The next step is to see
whether hermeneutics of animal being could here and there imply or suggest animal
interpretation next to human interpretation of animals. This is what I will analyse in
the next chapter.
---
2. Animal interpretation: three hermeneutical moments
---
The second relevant moment for us is situated in the nineteenth and earlier twentieth
century. In this period we find different authors bringing together the notions of
interpretation and life. Especially Wilhelm Dilthey's hermeneutic Lebensphilosophie
should concern us.(18) He is perhaps the most eminent hermeneuticist of the later
nineteenth century. In his works he often refers to the general notion of Leben (life).
He characterizes the riddle of life as the 'dark and fearful theme of all philosophy'.
(19) Does this perhaps mean that biological being receives a higher position in
relation to tasks of interpretation? Is perhaps bios (animal being) itself involved in
interpretative action? Let us see.
With Dilthey we have to follow his words on life and expression in order to get
at the task of interpretation. He reacts first of all against rationalism and
intellectualism. For him the realm of life is dynamic and creative, and the authentic
source of personal and cultural development. In Dilthey there is a sense of vitalism
serving as an alternative for culturalism without life. But while it is so that the notion
of life somehow 'borrows' from life in a biological context, Dilthey actually only
intends Leben within the human realm. Leben is full and 'unmutilated' human
experience, involving cognition, willing and feeling. We, humans, have a nature - a
nature unconsciously effective in us.(20) When Dilthey thus claims that lived
experience expresses itself in signs - language, art, but also gestures and facial
expressions - and that the task of interpretation is exactly to understand these signs,
he does not really refer to life in spiders or whales or lions. One author therefore
concludes: 'While appreciating the biological basis of life, he [Dilthey] never
emphasized it very much in his work'.(21) Hermeneutic philosophy of Leben is a
theory of human existence - an existence whose source of expression lies in a
prereflexive and vital realm.
Even so, I think we can say that the idea of 'life' at least to some extent breaks
the intellectual picture of man. Instead of bringing animals closer to human
expression, Dilthey 'vitalizes' human signification. From the perspective of
zoohermeneutics this is a fruitful step - a step which at least softens the gap between
human rationality and vital otherness. If expression can be connected to a prerational
and fundamental realm of life, then we already open up toward a different sense of
expression. This movement toward the vital as meaningful is furthermore confirmed
in Dilthey's view on varieties of expression.(22) He does, namely, not only refer to
'eminent' expressions such as artworks and novels, but to actions, facial signs, bodily
expressions. Think of a smile, gesture, tone of a voice, or trembling. These bodily
events refer to something else, namely the mood or state of being of someone. These
organic signs, which give expression to life, are in Dilthey confined to a story about
humans - but is it that hard to extend organic signs to the realm of animals? There is
animal gesture, posture and so on. One could perhaps argue that expression is
intentional in human beings, and that intentionality is an essential part of the
definition of something as an expression. However, while there must be purpose or
point to expressional being, Dilthey clearly allows unconsciously produced
expressions. We may be not aware that we dress in certain ways, hereby giving
expression to something. Furthermore, it is also not difficult, I think, to see point in
animal ways of expression. Certain animal postures are meant to accomplish
something (for example, to impress and scare away an animal opponent), even if not
through conscious semiotic behavior which so much characterizes human
expression. Dilthey's sense of organic or bodily expression is another step away from
'intellectualized hermeneutics', and therefore in its own small way fills the gap
between thinking selves and so-called mindless animals. Perhaps one can say that
Dilthey - like Freud and others - opens up a fuzzy logic between the poles of
rationalist mind and non-mind.
One question though. Is it perhaps the case that human life only results in
expresssional outlet because of the very typical nature of human vitality, whereas
animal life does not imply this typical need for expression, because of another type of
vital being? Think of Freud's theory of sublimation in which the need for cultural
production is related to a very specific structure of human personality. It is clear that
the higher expressions (paintings, music and so on), which are not available in
animals, are connected with a hermeneutic teleology in Dilthey. Our Leben can only
be interpreted by way of its expressions. Put otherwise: if we wish to know ourselves
(and 'self-knowledge' is a primary hermeneutic task in Dilthey or any other
existential hermeneuticist) we need a) to express ourselves , and b) to interpret these
expressions. This structurally implies that these expressions are themselves
interpretations of human life (as it is personalized in an individual), and that
subsequent interpretations of these interpretations are themselves expressions
(interpretations which are uttered to ourselves or others). This theme of self-
knowledge is not present in animal being, we can fairly assume. But this still leaves
the possibility of animal life being expressed, not for matters of self-knowledge, but
in function of others (enemies, mates). And these expressions are to be interpreted by
those others for which they are intended. If there is expression, there is a life - an
animal life not in search of itself, but in search of self-maintenance. In one of his very
rare passages on animals (passages always marginally situated between
anthropological issues) Dilthey does recognize (but does not further clarify) the
relation between life and expression in animals: 'Die Struktur und Artikulation des
Lebens ist überall, wo psychisches Innen auftritt, sonach in der ganzen Tier-und
Menschenwelt dieselbe.'(23)
There is much in Dilthey that confirms and clarifies the interpretational (and
expressional) excellence of human beings, quite in line with the idea of existential
hermeneutics (narrative self-interpretation, creation of life story, fiction and so on).
Since a human person expresses himself, he needs to interpret these signs, and the
signs of others. Higher signs (texts, for example) need to be received through higher
forms of interpretation. Texts imply ambiguity, distance, and conflict of
interpretation, There is often a trouble of interpretation. But there is also elementary
understanding between persons in common life. This process runs automatic and
spontaneous, almost intuitively. Think of understanding someone's facial expression.
What is the relevance of this elementary form of understanding in relation to the
problematics of animal interpretation? Again, Dilthey is not really concerned with
this. However, one could refer to certain moments in between. When Dilthey refers
to human reception of the outside world, the way we perceive objects and so on, he
seems to avoid the concept of Verstehen (as elementary understanding).(24) After
all, what is the message of a tree? And yet, how would he then call this act of
perception? He does not give it a name (besides perception of course, but then the
question is: what is the character of perfection as such). Dilthey's ommisions simply
disturb. Since he also has passages on animals and their perception of an outside, we
can allow ourselves to be equally disturbed about the lack of interpretational
tretament. In this sense the relevance of understanding in the animal world remains
quite visibly there as a question without sufficient response .(25)
Another point about Dilthey concerns an obstacle that blocks human
understanding of animals as creators of original meaning, namely his strong
conviction that the act of succesfully interpreting others is in the human context
made possible because of the 'Gemeinsamheit menschlichen Wesens'.(26) For Dilthey
we do not have this sense of affiliation and community with non-human nature - a
nature which can only be explained (Erklären) by the natural sciences (in lien with
their methodology), while humans and their signs can be understood (Verstehen). In
line with this, Dilthey refers to the constructive role of sympathy.(27) And we can
only feel sympathy with other humans, so it seems to be suggested. Dilthey is in fact
quite clear about the fact that we cannot get at the truth of 'tierischen
Lebensäußerungen' and of 'das in ihnen sich abspiegelnde Geistige'. However, since
he does refer - albeit marginally - to a life of animal mind and expression (and hence
interpretation, since expressions are to be interpreted), one may wonder whether
scientific explanation is the only appropriate response to animal ways of being. But
this is not Dilthey's problem.
It will perhaps be possible to transform Dilthey's notion of vital expressionism
and hermeneutic vitalism more fully beyond anthropology, namely in critical
response to his ommissions. For now, however, the reader can only be asked to keep
this beyond in mind.
2.3. Heidegger
3.2. Conclusions
In the context of the history about the extension of hermeneutics, I have hopefull
been able to underline the relevance of Uexküll. Uexküll is a fertile place to start up
today, in a mood of renewal, a hermeneutical of animal being. A place to start, but
not a place to stand still. Beyond Uexüll it will be necessary to bring in dimensions
which he has not suffiently articulated. Let me name two issues:
Uexküll does not say much about animals as semiotic creatures - as producers
and receivers of signs. It is clear that hermeneutics of animal being would remain
fundamentally incomplete if semiosis is left unclarified. Remember Dilthey - he
proposed the notion of expression, but mostly confined it to the human world. In
dialogue with someone like the American semiotic philosopher Charles Sanders
Peirce, however, an animal extension of sign-production and sign-reception can be
articulated. The idea of sign-production may lead to a conception of animals as
‘writers’.
But, in any case, it is also possible to find in Peirce’s vast pansemiotic enterprise
interesting suggestions for a distinction between interpretation and sign-
interpretation. Peirce is relevant for the problematics of interpretation as such.
Things in the world are of course often not perceived and interpreted in their
capacity of being a sign. For Peirce a sign represents another object in a certain
respect by virtue of being taken in that representative way by an interpreter. Certain
noises or smells may for a fox function as a sign that a rabbit is near. When,
subsequently, the rabbit itself is perceived by the fox it is not the case that the fox
interprets the rabbit as a sign of itself. Through interpreting signs (noises, smells) the
object of consumation, so to say, is reached. For Peirce no thing can function as a sign
of its own presence. When we see a photograph of an old friend we are confronted
with a sign. But when we in reality meet this old friend he does not stand as a sign of
his own presence (he may of course function as a sign in other aspects, as
representing other objects, but this is not the same as saying that he represents
himself qua sign). There is certainly a life of interpretation besides sign-
interpretation, and it is exactly Uexküll who allows us insight in non-semiotic
interpretation: interpretation as a general concept simply refers to the selective and
attentive process whereby an entity appropriates or receives certain aspects within
the world. But it is Peirce who helps us to see how aspects of the world may be taken
as signs for certain interpreting entities. To be taken as signs means to see an object
as a representation of another object. The animal world is full of examples where
things are ‘taken’ as signs of other things. In the different animal Umwelten the array
of signs is different. Certain smells are for one species a sign, while other species
ignore its presence as sign or reality altogether.We can conclude that the dimension
of signs needs further probing. Semiotics and hermeneutics of nature should be
grasped as parts of one story of meaning. (49)
Another issue that needs exploration is the idea of an ethics of interpretation.
(50) If animals are interpreters and if we somehow possess the interpretational
excellence to recognize the original otherness of animal interpretation (and semiosis),
then we are perhaps confronted with a duty arising out of capacity: human
excellence of interpretation leads to human recognition of the originality of animal
ways of being interpretative (and semiotic). Interpretation and semiosis bring to the
fore the fact that animals create meaning (Umwelten). These projects of meaning can
be ignored, destroyed, confirmed, celebrated and defended. The problematics of
interpretation plays a role in confirmation, celebration and defence.It appears that
the bulk of recent hermeneutic work to a large extent will continue to be concerned
with human excellence of interpretation. It would perhaps go too far to claim that
common hermeneutics straightforwardly denies processes of interpretation in animal
being - it rather appears to be the case that one is not interested in these processes.
Neglect, however, has its venom. If one does not speak about non-human creation of
meaning, soon the general impression will arise - or rather, continue to exist - that
only human interpretation is worth celebrating. However, I hope I have been able to
disturb the humanist party by bringing in some 'uninvited' interpretational guests.
A politics of disturbance should always be on the agenda of a generous and
stubborn ethics of interpretation. And if there are indeed projects of meaning outside
humanity, which are nowadays destroyed at an incredible rate, then the historical
story about hermeneutics provided in this paper may very well be considered as a
proposal for radical action.
NOTES
(4) See P. Ricoeur, Du texte à l'action, Paris, 1986, pp. 75-100. Paul Ricoeur
reigns as the most prestigious figure in contemporary existential hermeneutics.
I will, however, not study him in relation to animal being, since he does not at
all address this issue.
(5) See Ricoeur, ibid., pp. 183-211. Joseph Margolis refers to persons as
'uniquely apt texts' which are 'interested in interpreting all texts including
themselves' in his Texts without Referents, Oxford, 1989, p. 329
(6) Truthfulness is certainly not canceled out as an issue. In each life events
happen. One can debate about their significance, but not about the fact that they
did happen. The play of appreciation and connection of parts, however leaves
many chances for ‘creative interpretation’.
(9) One good introduction to the book of nature metaphor is E. Rothacker, Das
Buch der Natur, Bonn, 1979. Also see H. Blumenberg, Die Lesbarkeit der Welt,
Frankfurt am Main, 1981
(12) H. Blumenberg, 'Bücherwelt und Weltbuch', in Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, pp.
17-21
(14) See Umberto Eco's chapter on 'interpreting animals' in his The Limits of
Interpretation, Bloomington, 1994. Hugo of Saint Victor writes that the visible
world is as a book, written by God's finger (cited in Rothacker, ibid., p. 17).
(15) In this working paper I remain with classical hermeneutic views and
authors. In a broader analysis, however, we would have to probe the idea of
genetic code as a new version of the book of nature metaphor. Letters are for
example used to symbolize the different parts of the genetic code. See H.
Blumenberg, Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, pp. 372-409
(16) It is interesting, by the way, not to forget an earlier chapter within the
history of the metaphorical interaction between text and nature, which goes in
the opposite direction, notably as it concerns the body as a source for textual
conceptuality. Text refers to textus, which is latin for tissue. Chapter refers to
caput, which is latin for head . The bodily reference of footnote is obvious.
Another example in an opposite direction : Luther compares the Bible with a
rich forest (cited in Rothacker, ibid., p. 17).
(24) Dilthey does refer, but does indeed not further thematize, human
perception of aspects of being as coloured by interests, appreciation and so on.
(27) W. Dilthey writes, for example: 'Wir verstehen nur durch Liebe'
(Gesammelte Schriften, vol. VI, Göttingen, 1968 [1924], p. 74) ; Furthermore, he
writes: 'Auch das Verstehen ist von dem Maß der Sympathie abhängig, und
ganz unsympathische Menschen verstehen wir überhaupt nicht mehr'
(Gesammelte Schriften, vol. V, p. 277)
(30) B. Blans and S. Lijmbach (eds), Heidegger en de wereld van het dier
(Heidegger and the world of the animal), Assen, 1996; A. MacIntyre, 'How
impoverished is the world of the nonhuman animal?', in his Dependent
Rational Animals, Chicago, 1999; V. Houillon, 'Pauvrement habite l'animal', in
Alter. Revue de phénoménologie 3, 1995, pp. 115-150; J. Derrida, De l'esprit:
Heidegger et la question, Paris, 1987
(35) Heidegger also doubts the possibility for humans to reach animal being in
its originality. There is a principal possibility of interpretation, and yet in
relation to animals it cannot be properly actualized. I will discuss this point in
the part on animal interpretation.
(36) This comparison somehow portrays the animal as the sad entity, according
to Derrida - the sadness of having a lack of world. It is 'as of the animal
remained a man enshrouded, suffering, deprived on account of having access
neither to the world of man that he nonetheless senses, nor to truth, speech,
death, or the Being of being as such' (Derrida, ibid., p. 277).
(37) M. Heidegger, Nietzsche: Der europäische Nihilismus, Frankfurt am Main,
1986 (1940), p. 82: '... ein Nist- und Futterplatz; genauer: Wir erfahren und
nennen das so was wir so nennen, , hat für den Vogel nicht nur eine andere
bedeuting, sondern überhaupt keine 'Bedeutung', sofern wir darunter
verstehen: das im Sagen und Wissen Offenbare eines Seienden. Worauf der
Vogel bezogen ist, wenn er futterbringend dem Nest der Jungen zufliegt,
vermögen wir nie unmittelbar zu erfahren.'
(38) Derrida therefore argues that in Heidegger there 'is no category of original
existence for the animal' (ibid, p. 277) .
(39) Heidegger resents Uexküll's notion of animal Umwelt, which implies too
much an openess toward the world (Welt), while Heidegger tries his very best
to sketch animals as poor in world-openess. Heidegger's opinion of Uexküll is, I
believe, unjust. I even suspect that Heidegger's positive remarks on animals are
deeply influenced by Uexküll's texts.
(42) See Uexküll, 'Die Bedeutung der Umweltforschung für die Erkenntnis des
Lebens', in Kompositionslehre, p. 363-381
(43) Uexküll, 'Wie sehen wir die Natur und wie sieht sie sich selber?', in
Kompositionslehre, p. 179-213
(47) Uexküll, Kompositionslehre, p. 355: 'Es war ein Irrtum, zuglauben, die
menschliche Welt gäbe die gemeinsame Bühne für alle Lebewesen ab. Jedes
Lebewesen besitzt seine Spezialbühne, die genau so real ist wie die
Spezialbühne des Menschen.'
(48) See my paper for module 4 on Peirce and animal semiosis.
(49) See my paper for module 1 on animal excellence and the ethics of the
benevolent interpreter.
List of references
Blans, B. and Lijmbach, L. (eds) - Heidegger en de wereld van het dier, Assen, 1996
Blumenberg, H. - Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, Frankfurt am Main, 1981
Derrida, J. - De l'esprit: Heidegger et la question, Paris, 1987
Derrida, J. - Points ... Interviews, 1974-1994, Stanford, 1995
Desmond, W. - Philosophy and its Others, 1990, Albany
Dilthey, W. - Gesammelte Schriften, Göttingen (1959 - 2000) (23 volumes have appeared)
Eco, U. - The Limits of Interpretation, Bloomington, 1994.
Ermarth, M. - Wilhelm Dilthey: The Critique of Historical Reason , Chicago, 1978
Heidegger, M. - Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik, Frankfurt am Main, 1983.
Heidegger, M. - Nietzsche: Der europäische Nihilismus, Frankfurt am Main, 1986
Hirsch, E. - The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago, 1976
Houillon, V. - 'Pauvrement habite l'animal', in Alter. Revue de phénoménologie 3, 1995,
MacIntyre, A. Dependent Rational Animals, Chicago, 1999
Margolis, J. - Texts without Referents, Oxford, 1989
Nicholson, G. - Seeing and Reading, Atlantic Highlands, 1984
Ricoeur, P. - Cours sur l'herméneutique, Leuven, 1971-72
Ricoeur, P. - Du texte à l'action, Paris, 1986
Rothacker, E. - Das Buch der Natur, Bonn, 1979
von Uexküll, J. - Kompositionslehre der Natur, Frankfurt am Main, 1980
Zimmerman, M. - Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity, Bloomington, 1990