Metanarrative, Meaning, and Moby Dick

So just what is the chapter "The Whiteness of the Whale" really getting at in Herman Melville's classic novel, Moby Dick? You guessed it -- the answer has something to do with hermeneutics (the rules and guidelines of interpretation). If one sees this whole story as simply the adventurous tale of a whaling boat, a captain and his crew, and a mysterious white whale, well then the meaning of this chapter is pretty clear -- it describes a literal, albino whale that is one huge, smart, treacherous, and mysterious creature. Makes a great bedtime story. Although a tad haunting.

However, if one views this story as an allegory where Moby Dick represents the biblical God, well then the chapter takes on a whole different hue, to say the least. This allegory angle for Melville's classic is not total conjecture. It could be why Melville wrote to his friend and a fellow author, Nathaniel Hawthorne, upon finishing this work, "I have written my most wicked book." Was Melville attempting to communicate that the Christian God is as tyrannical and uncaring concerning human affairs (if He indeed exists at all) as the white whale?

Anyway, this scenario of (at least) two potential ways of reading Moby Dick illustrates an important point in the interpretation of texts (and life). The point is this: One's starting point or presuppositions of the text (and life) has more than a little impact and implication for interpreting the parts of the text (and life). We interact with and interpret all of life based on something.

Gadamer – True to Form (on Truth Focus)

Han-Georg Gadamer’s mere book title, Truth and Method, provides an insight into general western hermeneutics. It is commonly understood among cultural anthropologists that there are three primary classifications of societies regarding basic approaches to life: 1) guilt/righteousness societies, which emphasize truth; 2) shame/honor societies, which emphasize harmony; and 3) fear/power societies, which emphasize well-being. Gadamer illustrated and exemplified perfectly a tacit, societal worldview assumption concerning the primary importance of determining truth in the hermeneutical process. Virtually every western text on hermeneutics follows this same implicit assumption. (Check 'em out.) Such a fundamental assumption paves the way for interpretation to naturally be the result of following a well defined and designed set of exegetical rules. In contrast a shame/honor based society where harmony is the personal and communal goal of life and interpretation, the hermeneutical process would understandably depend more on the aspect of relationship. These contrasting societal platforms form the basis of much misunderstanding between various cultures; most notably cultures of the East and of the West. They also form the basis of interpretation postures: the one dependent primarily on a set of rules for determining meaning, the other on the relationships between reader, author, and text within a metanarrative. I am not advocating the decline of focus on truth! Save the tomatoes and eggs. But, just imagine the potential balance if the book had been, Harmony and Method.