Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 173–189 | Cite as

Was ist Text?

Eine ontologische Grundlage für Interpretationsmethodologien in der Politikwissenschaft
  • Hans-Ludwig BuchholzEmail author
Aufsatz

Zusammenfassung

Interpretationen behandeln ihre Objekte im weitesten Sinne als Texte, auch wenn es sich dabei um politische Ereignisse oder ganze Gesellschaften handelt. Der Beitrag fragt darauf aufbauend, was ein ontologisch fundiertes Nachdenken über schriftliche Textobjekte (Text im engen Sinne) über die politikwissenschaftliche Interpretation solcher nichtschriftlichen Objekte und Probleme aussagen kann. Der Begriff Textobjekt wird dazu als die offene und unabgeschlossene Summe aller ontologischer Möglichkeiten des Text-seins definiert. Ein genauer Blick auf die verschiedenen Verwendungen des Interpretationsbegriffs in der Politikforschung zeigt, dass diese Ontologie der Textobjekte auch auf den weiten Textbegriff und damit auf alle interpretativen Ansätze der Disziplin zutrifft. Zum einen führt dies zur Erkenntnis, dass jeder interpretative Ansatz auf einer Entscheidung der Interpretin oder des Interpreten für oder gegen ontologische Möglichkeiten des interpretierten Objektes beruht. Diese Entscheidung bestimmt anschließend epistemologische Annahmen und zur Verfügung stehende Methodologien. Interpretative Ansätze können anhand dieser Struktur beschrieben und analysiert werden. Zum zweiten zeigt die vorgeschlagene Ontologie, dass Interpretationen das Sein ihrer Objekte selbst bestimmen, wenn auch unter deren Einfluss stehend. Die offene Ontologie von Text (im engen und weiten Sinne) verfestigt sich erst in der Interpretation. Ein ständiges Bewusstsein für beide Beobachtungen sollte fester Bestandteil jeder politikwissenschaftlichen Interpretation sein.

What is text?

An ontological basis for methodologies of interpretation in political science

Abstract

The interpretation of, for example, political events or societies treats these as texts in a wide sense of the term. Based on this observation, the article asks for the insights that the ontology of written text objects (text in the narrow sense) can provide for the interpretation of the named non-written objects and problems. For this purpose, the term “text object” will be defined as the open and unfinished sum of all ontological possibilities of something being a text. An examination of the different ways in which the concept of interpretation is used in political science shows that this ontology of text objects also applies to the wide use of the term “text” and consequently to all interpreting approaches in the discipline. First, this prompts the insight that each interpreting approach is based on an interpreter’s decision for or against certain ontological possibilities of the interpreted object. This decision determines the epistemological convictions used in as well as the methodologies being available to an interpretation. Interpreting approaches can be described and analysed with reference to this structure. Second, the ontology of text formulated here reveals that interpretations determine the being of their objects, even though this happens under the objects’ influence. The open ontology of text (both in the wide and the narrow sense of the term) only consolidates into a fixed being in the process of interpretation. A constant awareness of both observations should guide every political science interpretation.

Literatur

  1. Ball, Terence. 2004. History and the interpretation of texts. In Handbook of Political Theory, Hrsg. Gerald Gaus, Chandran Kukathas, 18–30. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevir, Mark, und R.A.W. Rhodes. 2003. Interpreting British governance. New York, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blau, Adrian (Hrsg.). 2017. Methods in analytical political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Busen, Andreas, und Alexander Weiß (Hrsg.). 2013. Ansätze und Methoden zur Erforschung politischen Denkens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  5. Charlisle, Juliet E., und Robert C. Patton. 2013. Is social media changing how we understand political engagement? An analysis of Facebook and the 2008 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly 66:883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connolly, William E. 1995. The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In Writing and difference, Hrsg. Jacques Derrida, 278–294. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Derrida, Jacques. 1982. Margins of philosophy. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Limited Inc abc. In Limited Inc, Hrsg. Jacques Derrida, 29–110. Evanstone: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Force of law. The “mystical foundation of authority.”. In Acts of religion, Hrsg. Gil Anidjar, 230–298. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Effing, Robin, Jos van Hillegersberg, und Theo Huibers. 2011. Social media and political participation: are Facebook, twitter and youtube democratizing our political systems? In Electronic participation, Hrsg. Efthimios Tambouris, Ann Macintosh, und Hans de Brujin, 25–35. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floyd, Jonathan, und Marc Stears (Hrsg.). 2011. Political philosophy versus history? Contextualism and real politics in contemporary political thought. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, Michel. 1979. An Introduction. The history of sexuality, Bd. 1. London: Lane.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, Michel. 1998. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In Aesthetics, method, and epistemology, Hrsg. James D. Faubion, 369–392. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frazer, Elizabeth. 2008. Political theory and the boundaries of politics. In Political theory. Methods and approaches, Hrsg. David Leopold, Marc Stears, 171–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Freeden, Michael. 2008. Thinking politically and thinking about politics: language, interpretation, and ideology. In Political theory. Methods and approaches, Hrsg. David Leopold, Marc Stears, 196–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Furlong, Paul, und David March. 2010. A skin not a sweater: ontology and epistemology in political science. In Theory and methods in political science, Hrsg. David Marsh, Gerry Stoker, 184–211. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2010. Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  19. Geertz, Clifford. 1980. Blurred genres: the refiguration of social thought. The American Scholar 49:165–179.Google Scholar
  20. Glynos, Jason, und David Howarth. 2007. Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunnell, John G. 2010. Professing political theory. Political Research Quarterly 63:674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Zwölf Vorlesungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  23. Hacking, Ian. 1975. Why does language matter to philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hay, Colin. 2006. Political ontology. In The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis, Hrsg. Robert E. Goodin, Charles Tilly, 78–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heck, Axel. 2014. Visuelle Narrative in der Politik. In Politische Narrative. Konzepte – Analysen – Forschungspraxis, Hrsg. Frank Gadinger, Sebastian Jarzebski, und Taylan Yildiz. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  26. Heidegger, Martin. 1986. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  27. Hirsch, E.D., Jr.. 1967. Validity in interpretation. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hirsch, E.D., Jr.. 1976. The aims of interpretation. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ijsseling, Samuel. 1981. Philosophy and textuality: concerning a rhetorical reading of philosophical texts. Research in Phenomology 11:176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasza, G.J. 2010. The marginalization of political philosophy and its effects on the rest of the discipline. Political Research Quarterly 63:697–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelly, Paul. 2006. Political theory—the state of the art. Politics 26:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamarque, Peter. 2000. Objects of interpretation. Metaphilosophy 31:96–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leopold, David, und Marc Stears (Hrsg.). 2008. Political theory: methods and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. List, Christian, und Laura Valentini. 2016. The methodology of political theory. In The oxford handbook of philosophical methodology, Hrsg. Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabó Gendler, und John Hawthorne, 525–587. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Marchart, Oliver. 2005. The absence at the heart of presence: radical democracy and the “ontology od lack.”. In Radical democracy. Politics between abundance and lack, Hrsg. Lars Tonder, Lasse Thomassen, 17–31. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, Henri-Jean. 1988. The history and power of writing. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mulhall, Stephen. 2014. Philosophy, the university and the politics of culture. The Grahame Lock Memorial Lecture.Google Scholar
  38. Norton, Anne. 2004. 95 theses on politics, culture, and method. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Norval, Aletta. 2017. Ontopolitics and the future of democracy. Contemporary Political Theory 16:504–507.Google Scholar
  40. Parenti, Michael. 2006. Patricians, professionals, and political science. American Political Science Review 100:499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Probst, Jörg. 2013. Franz Josef Strauss, Heinrich Wölfflin und die Okonologie der Ideengeschichte. In Ansätze und Methoden zur Erforschung politischen Denkens, Hrsg. Andreas Busen, Alexander Weiß, 281–297. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renwick Monroe, Kristen (Hrsg.). 2005. Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Saar, Martin. 2013. Nachwort: Text, Interpretation, Diskontinuität. Methodenprobleme der politischen Ideengeschichte. In Ansätze und Methoden zur Erforschung politischen Denkens, Hrsg. Andreas Busen, Alexander Weiß, 321–329. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seaton, James. 1999. On politics and literature: the case of O pioneers! Perspectives on Political Science 28:142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sebell, Dustin. 2015. The socratic turn. Knowledge of good and evil in an age of science. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shapiro, Michael. 1984. Literary production as a politicizing practice. In Language and politics, Hrsg. Michael Shapiro, 215–253. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Shapiro, Michael. 1987. Reading the postmodern polity: political theory as textual practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  48. Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Regarding method. Visions of politics, Bd. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, Graham M. 2009. Through a glass, darkly: the vision and visions of political theory. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11:360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stow, Simon. 2007. Republic of readers? The literary turn in political thought and analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  51. Vesting, Thomas. 2011. Die Medien des Rechts: Schrift. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  52. Widdowson, H.G. 2004. Text, context, pretext. Critical issues in discourse analysis. Malden: Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zuckert, Cathrine. 1981. On Reading Classic American Novelists as Political Thinkers. The Journal of Politics 43:683–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) and the Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PH KarlsruheKarlsruheDeutschland
  2. 2.University of AberdeenAberdeenGroßbritannien

Personalised recommendations