Saturday, October 11, 2014

Consulting Rocks: Bruno Latour's Radical (Biblical) Hermeneutics

What happens to hermeneutics when it gets radicalized by making the claim that humans are not in a privileged position of interpretation, but rather that interpretation is ubiquitous throughout nature? If everything is an interpreting agent that negotiates alliances, connections, assemblages and networks with other interpreting agents? These two passages are taken from a discussion of the French sociologist of science (who also happens to be a Deleuzean-Whiteheadian) Bruno Latour, who argues that everything that exists, human and nonhuman, is an interpreter. To argue for the truthfulness of an interpretation would therefore depend on the hard work of building alliances with other interpreting agents, persuading them to construct a true interpretation with you - or in more pragmatist language, to form a consensus between humans and nonhumans. It is taken from Adam Miller's excellent "Speculative Grace: Bruno Latour and Object-Oriented Ontology":

"Ontologizing hermeneutics by radically extending its scope clearly does not commit Latour to an 'anything goes' attitude about possible interpretations of texts. Stiff limits are placed on possible interpretations by the fact that he has so drastically increased the number of parties involved. The bar for an interpretation is much higher when you must not only persuade other humans to go along with your reading, but legions of nonhumans as well. Further, nonhumans tend to stabilize the whole affair because, in general, they are markedly less gullible." (110)

"Say you want to offer a brilliant reading of Genesis that requires the Earth to be just six thousand years old. Latour has no objection to this. You are welcome to try. But it is not enough to convince a subset of humans to go along with your reading. Nonhumans must be convinced too. The opinion of a fossil matters. Carbon-14 gets a say. DNA has a voice. Glacial ice can't be discounted. If 4.5 billions years worth of rocks and weather and radioactive decay disagree, then your reading is seriously hamstrung. The irony of a 'literal' reading that discounts the opinion of actual stones and actual letters is that it flirts with nihilism. A reading of Genesis doesn't fail to be objectively true if it fails to flawlessly repeat. It fails to be objectively true when it no longer bothers to take both words and rocks seriously as objects with independent histories, trajectories, weaknesses, and frictions of their own." (111)

No comments:

Post a Comment