In a Nutshell

You flip open a fat, zillion-page novel. You leaf through an encyclopedia. You read the tabloid headlines in line at the grocery store. You scroll through your Facebook feed.
When you look at any of these things, you are, in a word, interpreting them. But what’s actually happening when you do this? Sure, you’re breathing, you’re chewing gum, you’re letting your eyes wander toward that foxy individual across the room. But, when you actually work on understanding the words in front of you, what’s the process of how you interpret those texts?
That’s the basic question posed and explored by the school of thought called hermeneutics. Not hemorrhoids. Not Hermione Granger. Hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is a general theory of how people interpret stuff—and that stuff can be across multiple genres and all manner of speaking and writing. Hermeneutics is less concerned with understanding specific works of poetry or theology or case law or whatever than it is with understanding what it means to understand in general. Totally clear, right?
What are the tools people use to get the gist of whatever thing they’re looking at, whether the Bible or the epics of Homer or Miley Cyrus’ latest single? The method of hermeneutics addresses that question by analyzing the rules that apply to each text, the circumstances that can occur in any one of them, and how people find the meaning in whichever masterpiece they’re looking at.
The hermeneutic philosophers (hermeneutites? Hermeneuticists? Hermenphrodites?) pretty much agree that when you interpret a text, you always do so situated in—cue dramatic music—the hermeneutic circle. Think the Circle of Life, but with stodgy theorists instead of singing animals.
The basic idea is that every interpretation takes place in some location, so every interpretation comes influenced by the specific circumstances of whoever’s doing the interpreting. Quite a few places, usually.
Why? Well, we live in different societies and different cultures. We speak different languages. We come from different traditions. We have different histories. We have different presuppositions and pre-judgments.
In other words, no one of us ever approaches a text from every place or no place. The meaning of your own life and circumstances informs the meaning you find in texts about the lives and circumstances of others. Are we there yet?
Having a perspective means there’s things you see and don’t see. An English-speaker unfamiliar with Russian culture and history, not to mention the whole Christianity thing, won’t be able to see the whole of Crime and Punishment the way Dostoevsky did. However, neither will the contemporary Russian, who is also pretty distant from the world in which Dostoevsky wrote his novel, even if they’re looking out the window at the same sort of icy snow storm you only get in Russia.
And guess what? Even the author has a perspective on her own work. If you’ve written a lot of papers, you’ve probably discovered the benefit of taking time away from a writing project so as to get a little distance and get a more objective view. The hermeneutic philosophers argue that no one can have a purely objective view, free of limits. No one sees the whole perfectly or fully, so no one can completely make sense of the parts. All we can do is go piece by piece—or better yet, arc by arc.
Moving along the hermeneutic circle means you get a better sense of the whole by better understanding the parts, and you get a better sense of the parts by getting a better sense of the whole—the whole of the text and the worlds outside the text from which it came and to which it belongs.
You never get a perfect sense of everything under the sun, however, so there’s no leaving the hermeneutic circle. No, we’re not there yet. Never will be. But think of the circle as a giant pizza to bite through one cheese lump at a time, and that way you can choose to enjoy the ride.

Why Should Readers Care?

Whether you’re reading the news while you sip your coffee, wading through Virgil’s Aeneid for your lit class, responding to another driver who’s honking at you, or reading up on J-Wow’s latest tweets, hermeneutics is there. It always shows up the moment something meaningful is communicated from someone to someone else.
Basically, wherever you find human beings, you find hermeneutics (not that it doesn’t spread into the animal kingdom—how does an antelope interpret a lion’s roar? They run).
So, to study hermeneutics is to study what happens when interpretation happens: what‘s the process by which meaning is understood, what happens to us when we seek to understand our world by interpreting it, why that antelope just knows it’s gotta bolt.
You should care about hermeneutics because it’s something that happens to you every day, and what it shows you is that you’re not some isolated individual thinking about the world in your own way; you’re bound to traditions that have given you ways of perceiving and interpreting, judging and acting, not all of which are you aware of.
Oh, you think your thinking is really your own? Think again! Your rootedness in tradition colors and shapes how you understand and approach the world. But lucky for you, studying hermeneutics will give you a better sense of what your own thinking and acting owe to the languages you speak, the family you come from, the culture in which you live, and the society in which you eat, sleep, think, talk, read, tweet, blog, shmoop, and operate day by day. In a way, it’s all about you!

Why Should Theorists Care?

Sometimes a specific way of interpreting a text is called a “hermeneutic.” Theorists speak of a feminist hermeneutic, or a Marxist hermeneutic, or a classical hermeneutic. The term denotes the angle a person takes to approach a text and the methodology one employs. The term is fitting because hermeneutics, as a general theory of interpretation, underlies all individual hermeneutic tools and tactics.
It’s easy to get locked into one’s preferred hermeneutic, believing it’s the be-all-end-all of how to see the world. The study of hermeneutics can provide the antidote to this temptation. By seeing one’s preferred manner of interpreting as coming from a specific place and rooted in specific traditions, one begins to see that there are more things in the world than your given philosophy can cover.
On top of all those other tools, hermeneutics is a tool in humility. Just the sort of medicine most theorists need. And, to be honest, who hasn’t wanted to humble a theorist?

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok’s congressional testimony revealed inherent bias, mendacity and corruption within the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (“Trump says after Strzok hearing that ‘rigged’ Mueller probe is hurting U.S. relations with Russia,” Web, July 13). Mr. Strzok proclaimed that the vulgar and partisan messages with his mistress Lisa Page via FBI smartphones could never create biased investigations. He testified, “And the suggestion that I, in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI, would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards, and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn’t happen.” Yet Mr. Strzok conveniently omitted that these “safeguards” included the former FBI Director James Comey, the now-fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr and of course, the now-resigned FBI girlfriend-attorney Lisa Page. These people were the checks and balances to which Mr. Strzok alluded. This all suggests something rotten in the Counterintelligence Division.
Such unsavory biases and rigged investigations are not new. The FBI has a known history of “black bag” jobs and “COINTELPRO” investigations that were highly political and inherently unconstitutional. Now these FBI bureaucrats have been caught acting as a virtual legal defense service for the Hillary Clinton team and something more akin to a Spanish Inquisition to the Donald Trump team.
Since the FBI and the DOJ refuse to come clean, they no longer deserve the honor of running America’s counter-intelligence programs. The function of counter-intelligence should be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security as soon as possible.
RICK REISS
Temecula, Calif.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election is ongoing – and secret.
So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president’s campaign.
Alex van der Zwaan, an attorney, pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators during the investigation, and was sentenced to 30 days in prison in April 2018. He was the first to be sentenced in the probe.
The special counsel filed new tax evasion and bank fraud charges against Manafort and Gates in late February, potentially increasing the amount of prison time the pair could face if convicted at trial. The charges are similar to those filed in October.
Here’s a closer look at those who have faced charges throughout Mueller’s probe.

Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn, who served as Trump’s national security adviser for less than a month before resigning, was charged and pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.
Flynn reportedly lied about his talks with Russia’s ambassador to Washington. In late 2016, while former President Barack Obama was still in office, the two allegedly spoke about the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia.
This raised concerns that Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, misled Trump officials about his conversations with Russian officials.

Paul Manafort

The special counsel filed a 32-count indictment on Feb. 22 against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and aide Rick Gates, accusing the pair of tax evasion and bank fraud.
The new indictment accused Manafort and Gates of doctoring documents to inflate the income of their businesses and then using those fraudulent documents to obtain loans. It also accused Manafort of evading taxes from 2010 through 2014 and, in some of the years, concealing his foreign bank accounts.
And on Feb. 23, a newly unsealed indictment accused Manafort of secretly paying former European politicians to lobby on behalf of Ukraine.
Manafort turned himself in to federal authorities in the fall. The 69-year-old served as Trump’s campaign manager for a few months in 2016. Gates, Manafort’s business associate, also turned himself in at the time.
Manafort was initially charged in a 12-count indictment in connection with foreign lobbying work, and he pleaded not guilty. The charges included: conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money, false statements, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, and multiple counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, according to a special counsel’s office spokesman.
In June 2018, Mueller’s team brought additional charges of obstruction of justice against Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, an associate.
Manafort sued to have the case against him dismissed and argued that Mueller had overstepped his bounds by charging him for conduct he says is unrelated to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
On June 15, however, Manafort was jailed after a federal judge revoked his $10 million bail based on new witness tampering charges brought by Mueller.