Dialectical Readings: Three Types of Interpretation by Stephen N. Dunning (review)

Georg Gadamer, he does not give Gadamer cult status. Those who wrangle with the complications and shortcomings of theory will want to read it. $t Stephen N. Dunning. DialecticalReadings: Three Types ofInterpretation . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. 191p. Anne Foltz University of Nf.w Mexico In his thought-provokingwork, DialecticalReadings: Three Types ofInterpretation, philosopher Stephen N. Dunning attempts to ease the tensions which have emerged as an ever-expanding range of interpretative methods vie for privileged status. To accomplish this, he establishes a three-part dialectical typology which assesses various conflicting interdisciplinary approaches to the act of interpretation . Dunning's project centers on bringing a sense of order to conflicts which have frequently undermined the understanding ofdialectical methods; thus, Dialectical Readings "offers a way to grasp the contextual character ofall interpretation without succumbing to relativism, and a way to sort out which interpretation ofa text or subject seems to be most adequate without ignoring the genuine contributions ofother understandings" (3-4). Dunning delineates a typological rubric featuring three dialectical types ofinterpretation . For example, theoretical interpretation is a dialectic ofcontradiction which finds truth in the clear distinctions ofa pursuit ofknowledge — either of the object or the self. Ambiguity is exploited, although theoretical interpretation assumes and asserts the validity ofthe fundamental binary oppositions it explores. Dunning explains that although this method of explanation strives to be objective , "it can also take a subjective form in reaction against such objectivity" (8). Thinkers he aligns with the theoretical include behavioral scientist B.F. Skinner, anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, historian Lee Benson, and philosophers Roland Barthes, Frederich Nietzsche, and Michel Foucault. Dunning's second mode, transactional interpretation, may be seen as a critical response to the methodological dialectics of theoretical interpretation; it is a dialectic of reciprocity emphasizing the give and take between two consenting parties to a hermeneutical transaction. With mutual understanding and reciprocal relations goals of this method of interpretation, truth is found in dialogic interaction, harmony, and communication between subject and object as selfand Other. Transactional thinkers in Dunning's paradigm are similarly situated in a wide range ofdisciplines and includeJacques Ellul, Mary Douglas, E.H. Carr, Erich Fromm, Martin Buber, and 110 * ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW * FALL 1998 E.D. Hirsch. The final division in the typology is transformational interpretation, grounded in theopposition between theoretical and transactional approaches.This is clearly a dialectic ofparadox which combines the stricter methods of theoretical interpretation with the dialogic character oftransactional interpretation, seeking ultimately to synthesize both explanation and understandingas parts ofa larger whole. Truth, according to a transformational model, belongs to the subject matter and encourages more open access to a world revealed by the text, enabling the interpreter to see an old subject in a different manner. To demonstrate the transformational interpretation at work, Dunning uses the work ofThomas Kuhn, Joseph Campbell, Soren Kierkegaard, and Paul Ricoeur. This three-part schema allows Dunning to provide fresh, and in many cases oddly perplexing, readings ofmany ofthese theorists, and it is quite evident that he favors transformational interpretation. Dunning acknowledges his debt to transformational thinking, indicating that the project "was initially conceived as an application of Soren Kierkegaard's theory of the three stages in the development " (14). These three stages — aesthetic, ethical, and religious consciousness — ofKierkegaard's cosmology have been transformed into the theoretical, transactional , and transformational types here, and "are arranged directionally, with theoretical at the beginning and transformational at the end" (13). Dunning deftly silences potential questioners by asserting that "[although others might wish to rearrange the three, they could do so only by redefining the dialectical character of each type" (13). Before launching into the exegetical portion of his project, Dunning acknowledges that "transformational interpretation is not superior for every topic or in the hands of every interpreter" (13), topics which he indicates might be the evaluation ofsurgical techniques or adjudicating labor disputes performed by the less adequately prepared dialectician. Thus, "when a problem demands technical expertise or a question requires an immediate and practical answer ," the rarified interests of transformational philosophy may not prove to be superior. What is less clear is why transformational interpretation should be seen in a more favorable light. The examples ofboth...