The Dialogical Concept of Meaning in H.-G. Gadamer's "Truth and Method" and its significance for Literary Hermeneutics

Podkovyrin Yurii Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9306-4331 PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Department of Theoretical and Historical Poetics, Russian State University for the Humanities; Associate Professor, Department of Russian Language and Literature, Moscow Financial and Industrial University "Synergy" 141446, Russia, Moscow, Miusskaya Square, 6 mail1981@list.ru Other publications by this author

The dialogical nature of the humanitarian, not only artistic, meaning is realized and considered in the studies of many thinkers and humanitarians of the XX-XXI centuries: M. Buber ^[1], M.M. Bakhtin ^{[2, 3]}, representatives of the schools of "receptive aesthetics" (H.-R. Yauss ^[4], V. Yser ^[5]) and "critics of the reader's reaction" (S. Fish ^[6]), scientists developing Bakhtin's ideas in literary studies (V.I. Tyupa ^{[7, pp. 10-36]}, L.Y. Fuchson ^{[8, 9]}). Such views on the essence of meaning arise in the "dialogical" directions of humanitarian thought of the last century and are opposed, on the one hand, to the scientist identification of meaning and information (a set of objective information, meanings), on the other hand, to the ideas of the inevitable subjectivism of any humanitarian understanding formed within the same scientist directions (see our article about this: ^[10]). At the same time, the significance of dialogical concepts of meaning for understanding the specifics of the meaning of the artistic remains insufficiently clarified. The most consistent approach to meaning as a dialogical phenomenon, "intersubjective" in nature, is presented in the works of H.-G. Gadamer. An important feature and advantage of these works (and above all the main one – "Truth and Method" ("Wahrheit und Method") ^[11]) is their polemical orientation, namely, a meaningful criticism of monologues concepts of meaning (both subjectivist and objectivist) and monologism as a priority way of thinking of the New time. In the studies devoted to hermeneutics of H.-G. Gadamer, various aspects of his theory of understanding are considered (see, for example: ^{[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]}). However, some aspects, especially significant for the theory of literature, still remain poorly understood: 1) how the phenomenon of meaning itself is interpreted in Gadamer's hermeneutics; 2) what is the significance of Gadamer's hermeneutic theory for understanding the specifics of the meaning of a literary work.

The purpose of this article is to clarify the importance of the dialogical approach to meaning, presented in H.-G. Gadamer's hermeneutics, for understanding the features of the semantics of a literary work of art.

In his program book "Truth and Method", which we will rely on in this article, Gadamer does not specifically address the problems of interpretation and existence of the meaning of a literary work and, more broadly, a work of art. His idea is more global: it involves clarifying the mechanisms of understanding any linguistic phenomena in general, since they cannot be known through the sciences based on the method (natural sciences). At the same time, the experience of art and literature (as a linguistic phenomenon) is preferable for Gadamer, since it is precisely these branches of human activity that represent forms of understanding reality that are alternative to scientific ones (See, for example, the following fragment: "... the sciences of the spirit approach such ways of comprehension that lie outside of science: with with the experience of philosophy, with the experience of art, with the experience of history itself. All these are ways of comprehension in which the truth proclaims itself, which is not subject to verification by methodological means of science" ^{[11, p. 39.]}). Because of this, Gadamer's reflections on the universal laws of understanding in general all understandable, meaningful (according to Gadamer, linguistic, since "being that can be understood is language" ^{[11, p. 548]}) phenomena are of particular value for clarifying the nature and specificity of artistic meaning.

In Gadamer's concept of meaning, as we believe, four interrelated points are the most important and at the same time directly related to our problem:

1) the meaning is intentional, always correlated with a certain attitude of a thinking person;

2) the meaning is always correlated with more than one intention (for example, not only with the creative attitude of the author, but also with the understanding intention of the interpreter);

3) the meaning is "eventful", that is, it is not just reconstructed as something already once and for all ready in acts of interpretation, but in every new event of understanding it is enriched with new shades; therefore, every understanding is an "accomplishment" ("The one who understands is always already involved in the accomplishment in which declares itself meaningful" ^{[11, p. 566]}): semantic enrichment and renewal of being (first of all, the being of the interpreter himself).

4) the meaning, despite the fact that it is constantly updated in acts of interpretation, retains its identity; Gadamer is categorically against the relativization of meaning.

Let's consider these provisions in more detail and try to find out how much they can help us in understanding what the meaning of a literary work is. The first two points for Gadamer are, in fact, inseparable, they assume each other. Every understanding, according to Gadamer, requires communion (cf.: "The experience of historical tradition (...) always proclaims such a truth to which one should join" ^{[11, p. 40]}). Gadamer's ideas about the involvement of the understanding in what he understands echo the Bakhtin concept of "participatory thinking", opposing "fatal theorism" (Bakhtin) in philosophy and science of the XIX-XX centuries). In other words, meaning can only be artificially separated from the very act of thinking (understanding) and being an interpreter (which is exactly the case in science, "objectifying" reality). However, we join the understood (for example, a certain text) because its meaning has already affected us: "understanding begins with the fact that something appeals to us" ^{[11, p. 354]}. Consequently, understanding is considered by Gadamer exclusively as mutual understanding, dialogue. Meaning, on the other hand, appears not as a passive object of discovery and mastery, but as something active; not generated by our subjective efforts, but opening up towards our understanding:  "... historical tradition in all its forms, although it becomes the subject of [here and further in this quotation, the italics of H.-G. Gadamer] research, however, at the same time finds its own voice in its truth" ^{[11, p. 40]}.

The dialogical nature of meaning is clarified by Gadamer on the material of art through the application of the concept of play to it. The special seriousness of the game is determined by the fact that the player is immersed in it ^{[11, p. 148]}. Consequently, the game will not be presented to the player as an object: "The charm of the game, its conquering effect consists precisely in the fact that the game captures the players, takes possession of them" ^{[11, p. 152]}. However, the same is true for art, according to Gadamer. The subject of artistic experience (as well as the subject of the game) is not only and not so much the contemplator (the player), but above all the work of art itself (the game) ^{[11, p. 148]}. It is the meaning of the game (rules) that seizes the players and is actualized through them. Similarly, a work of art reveals its meaning by involving the reader (viewer, listener) in activities according to the rules (cf. L.Y. Fuchson, who develops the Gadamer parallel of art and play, defining the reader's activity as "voluntary submission to the rules" ^{[8, p. 223]}) established by the work itself. Turning to the experience of art and drawing a productive parallel between art and play, Gadamer reveals the intersubjective structure of all understanding and, consequently, the dialogicity of the very "essence of the matter" – meaning.  However, according to Gadamer, in the dialogue, in the situation of "belonging" ^{[11, p. 344]}, in general, every meaning is revealed, not only the meaning of a work of art. However, what is the specificity of the dialogicity of artistic meaning? Is it possible to raise such a question at all within the framework of Gadamer's "philosophical hermeneutics"?

As we have already noted, Gadamer considers it necessary to turn to the experience of art to solve universal hermeneutic issues. According to the German philosopher, there is a revelation of truth in art: "The representation of the game reveals what is [my italics are Yu.P.]. In it, what is always hidden and escapes in other conditions is put forward and comes to light" ^{[11, p. 159]}. But why does the truth elude us outside of art? According to Gadamer, this happens due to the fact that in our real life we perceive "reality" "on the horizon of the future" ^{[11, p. 159]}. The aspiration of our gaze to the future, to the "upcoming meaning" (Bakhtin) prevents us from seeing the present (what is): "The uncertainty of the future allows such an excess of expectations to exist that reality is forced to hide behind them" ^{[11, p. 159]}. The appeal to the game ("the game of art" – ibid.), "the purpose of which is contained in itself" ^{[11, p. 159]}, allows you to join reality, not obscured by the semantic uncertainty of the upcoming. Considering the phenomenon of art against the background of the opposition of the horizon of our life, which is always moving into the future – into the sphere of goals and opportunities – and the self-contained game in which all possibilities are realized, become real, seems to us extremely productive. In fact, the truth (meaning) revealed in the play of art is not something additional to being, but being itself as it is "in fact" ^{[11, p. 159]}.

It is precisely because of its truth-revealing nature that the game of art (here Gadamer recalls the ancient concept of mimesis) is cognition. By depicting something, art reveals it (pictured) meaning, allows you to "learn" ("the cognitive meaning of mimesis is recognition" ^{[11, p. 160]}) the depicted object "as it is", in its truth.

The idea of the privileged position of art in relation to meaning (truth) genesis develops in the Gadamer image analysis. First of all, Gadamer considers it necessary to distinguish the image from the display ^{[11, p. 184]} and thus reveal the connection of the image with its world (ibid.). The display is purely functional; it does not mean anything in itself, only indicates what is displayed ^{[11, pp. 185-186]} – "like, for example, a photo in a passport" ^{[11, p. 186]}. The image, according to Gadamer, is inseparable from the depicted, does not refer to it, but as if it represents it directly, gives it "to appear". It is precisely because of this existential continuity that the image carries out the "increase of being" (ibid.) of the depicted. In the future, Gadamer defines this "gain" more precisely: "art in general and in a universal sense provides an increase in visibility to being [our italics – Yu.P.]. The word and image are not a simple subsequent illustration; they allow what they represent to be completely what it is" ^{[11, p. 190]}. In other words, art makes visual[does not prove, but shows] the truth itself.

Gadamer's opposition of structure and play is also connected with the idea of art as a place of direct manifestation of meaning. On the one hand, in the concept of the game, Gadamer's idea of understanding as belonging is realized. On the other hand, the concept of structure allows Gadamer, as already noted, to get away from the relativization of meaning. Indeed, the meaning of the game (as well as art) is revealed in the game itself, which is a time–limited and unique "accomplishment". But at the same time, the meaning that "comes true" in the game is always a certain meaning that is not created anew every time by a new game (or players), but is revealed in it in a new way. Gadamer's thought is of great importance for literary hermeneutics as well. If we draw an analogy with reading a literary work (and according to Gadamer, "literary works of art are capable of being realized only in reading" ^{[11, p. 215]}), then in each reading a different meaning is revealed not every time, but the same, preserving identity to itself, meaning.

So, Gadamer convincingly shows why the experience of art makes it possible to clarify the nature of understanding as such. However, the very meaning of an artistic (in particular, literary) work does not become a special topic for Gadamer. The dialogical nature of understanding and, consequently, of meaning itself, is demonstrated by Gadamer with all distinctness. At the same time, if every understanding is a co-participation, then what is the specificity of that participation, thanks to which the artistic meaning is revealed? Gadamer goes from the experience of art to the universality of understanding as a language communication, conversation. We must, taking into account Gadamer's thoughts, make the return journey. It seems to us that on the "horizon" (to use this term of the German philosopher) of literary hermeneutics, some of the ideas mentioned below can be developed Gadamer and posed a number of problematic issues directly related to the problem of the specifics of the meaning of a literary work and requiring special consideration.

Firstly, it is the idea that the meaning in a work of art "opens up", as it is freed from the obscuring moments of the semantic future (possibilities). In the light of this idea of Gadamer, literary hermeneutics faces two primary questions. What are the reasons for the "liberation" of meaning from teleological elements? How in a literary work is it related to the positions of the author and the reader?

Secondly, the contrast of structure and play described by Gadamer actualizes the following question, which is significant for literary hermeneutics: how does the "eventfulness" of the meaning of a literary work correlate with its (meaning) identity?

Thirdly, Gadamer's idea of "increasing the visibility" of being in a work of art can be developed in the context of literary hermeneutics by answering two more significant questions.  How does the "visibility" of being manifest itself in a literary work? How (and thanks to what) does it open to the "eyes" of the author and the recipient?