|
Back to Robbins' Publications Jump to any page of the article: p. 284 p. 285 p. 286 p. 287 p. 288 p. 289 p. 290 p. 291 p. 292 p. 293 p. 294 p. 295 p. 296 p. 297 |
knowledges the differences between interpretation and explanation and champions the positive values of each" (1990:22). In the end, the approach of Lawson and McCauley appears, at best, to be inclusivist. It appears to invite only those interpretive methods that meet certain criteria established by methods of "explanation." On the other hand, Wuellner and Amador have established an exclusivist position, allowing no place for the historical and social sciences at the table of rhetorical interpretation. A socio-rhetorical hermeneutics, in contrast, introduces an interactionist approach to hermeneutics. Its procedures are multiple, dynamic, and non-polarizing. A primary goal of socio-rhetorical interpretation is to integrate the study of religion as a humanistic discipline, a theological discipline, and a social-scientific discipline. The choice of the term "rhetorical" moves beyond the confines of literary studies to the interrelation of communication, theology, philosophy, and the social sciences. The prefix "socio-" in the phrase "socio-rhetorical" moves beyond the confines of historical studies to the interrelation of cultural discourse, social contexts and sociological and anthropological theory. The key to socio-rhetorical interpretation lies in the manner in which it establishes dialogical interaction among multiple disciplinary strategies of interpretation. Citing Plato, Mailloux asserts that "Unlike the spoken work in dialogue, the written text remains powerless to correct its receiver's misreading" (Plato in Mailloux 1997: 380). A major strategy of socio-rhetorical interpretation is to place dialogue at the center of reading and interpretation of a written text. No strategy of reading a text is excluded from the conversation. This does not mean that "anything goes." Rather, it means that the approach invites disciplined strategies of interpretation to interact with one another on a level playing fieldăinviting them to shed light on one another's insights and ideologies. The interpreter, of course, both designs and referees specific moments of interpretation, thus socio-rhetorical interpretation recognizes and invites investigations of the ideological orientation of all interpretations. If the interpretation enacts a socio-rhetorical hermeneutic, it will be guided by interactionism rather than exclusivism or inclusivism. B. Socio-Rhetorical Hermeneutics as Ethnography of Orality, Writing, and Reading How can a rhetorical mode of interpretation establish an interactional environment among social-scientific, humanistic, and theological analysis? The answer in socio-rhetorical interpretation is to interpret a text like an anthropologist interprets a village. This leads to an ethnography of texts (cf. Garrett 1989). The interactionism of socio-rhetorical interpretation is grounded in ethnography of orality, writing, and reading |