Overstanding

En Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (1979), Wayne Booth introduce la dicotomía comprensión/superación para marcar la diferencia entre la interpretación positiva de la obra literaria y aquellas sobreinterpretaciones que, a diferencia de las lecturas abusivas y forzadas, son susceptibles de alcanzar el consenso crítico. Tal es el caso de la interpretación realizada por Rafael Lapesa con motivo de la significación alegórica del mar presente en Oda a la vida retirada en Fray Luis a la luz de los acontecimientos históricos que se viven en la España del siglo XVI. Tomando como referencia la singular interpretación que brinda el reputado hispanista de los versos de Fray Luis, abordaremos en este artículo la problemática discusión en torno a los límites de la interpretación y analizaremos los principales avatares concernientes a la hermenéutica actual tras la consolidación de la crítica deconstructivista, cuyo modelo aboga por el relativismo interpretativo en virtud de la ambigüedad e inestabilidad esencial del significado literario.

In Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (1979), Wayne Booth introduces the dichotomy understanding/overstanding to establish the difference between the positive interpretation of the literary work and all those overinterpretations which are susceptible, unlike the forced and abusive readings, to reach a critical consensus. Such is the case of the Lapesa’s interpretation about the allegorical meaning of the sea in Fray Luis’ Oda a la vida retirada in the light of the historical events occurred in the Spanish 16th Century. From the point of view of this singular reading given by the renowned Hispanist, this article will focus on the troublesome argument upon the interpretation’s limits and the main changes concerning Hermeneutics today, after the consolidation of deconstructive criticism, whose model claims the hermeneutical relativism as a result of literature’s essential ambiguity and instability.

Criticism inspired by Derrida’s deconstruction and the main theories by Paul De Man and the Yale School introduced the issue on the literary interpretation limits in the context of the Posmodernity. Since then the difference between the positive understanding of the literary work and all those overinterpretations which are susceptible, unlike the forced and abusive readings, to reach a critical consensus focuses the attention of the literary Hermeneutics over the last decades (Abrams, Eco, Culler, etc). This article reviews the main argumentations upon the discussion and gives some possible clues and alternatives beyond interpretative relativism to regard a new hermeneutical paradigm in the 21th Century.

The deconstructive theory formulated by Jacques Derrida at the end of 1960 supposed the establishment of a new paradigm for the literary investigation. Since then, post-structuralist criticism has been discussing the possibility of achieving a solid knowledge of the literary work as a consequence of its instability as an object. However, the cultural relativism derived from the deconstructive criticism entails a series of problems that affect both the scope of teaching literature and the role played by the literary theory and criticism. Such is the case that this paper analytically tries to decompose the elements that constitute the differential theory of the literary text, in an attempt to deconstruct the deconstruction, to examine the possible structural biases and contradictions implicit in its foundations.