Leopold von Ranke

Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), the nineteenth-century German historian, is generally considered as the Father or Columbus of modern history and the Father of modern scientific history. He is also known as the founding father of Empirical historiography and he stood for objectivity. It was Ranke who must be credited with the beginning of modern historiography.

Important Works of Ranke

·         History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations

·         History of the world

·         History of the Popes

·         History of the Reformation in Germany

·         French History

·         English History

·         Prussian History

·         Published a journal entitled Historische Zeitschrift

Berlin Revolution

Ranke was a Professor of history at Berlin University. He brought fundamental changes in the writing of modern history. Thus his revolutionary contributions to the historical writing are described as Berlin Revolution.

Contributions of Ranke

Objectivity – It was Ranke who laid the foundation of a genuinely ‘objective’ historiography. “Strict presentation of the fact is the supreme law of history and the duty of the historian is to show what actually happened”. He clearly distinguished history from literature and philosophy. By doing so, he attempted to rid it of an overdose of imagination and metaphysical speculation. For him, the historians’ job was to investigate the past on its own terms and to show to the readers ‘how it essentially was’. The objectivist tradition believed in both the reality of the past as well as in the possibility of its mirror representation.

Historicism – Ranke believed that the past should be understood in its own terms and not those of the present. In Ranke’s opinion, the historian should avoid the present-centric concerns while studying the past. This idea of Ranke and the Empirical school introduced the notion of historicity. It meant that the past has its own nature which was different from the present. It is the duty of the historian to uncover the spirit of a particular age.

Empiricism – Ranke was an Empiricist who believed that knowledge is derived only through sense experience. And the knowledge of the past can come from the sources which are the objective embodiments of the experiences of the people of that particular period. Thus the historian should rely only on the material available in the sources.

Hierarchy of the sources – Ranke wanted the historians to subject the sources to strict examination and look for their internal consistency so as to determine whether they were genuine or later additions. He wanted the historians to critically examine and verify all the sources before reposing their trust in them. But, once it was proved that the records were genuine and belonged to the age which the historian was studying, the historian may put complete faith in them. He called these records primary sources and maintained that these sources would provide the foundations for a true representation of the contemporary period. Thus the historians should trust the archival records more than the printed ones which might be biased. Then there are the other sources produced by people later on. These are known as secondary sources, which indirectly relate to the events.

Ranke also emphasized the importance of providing references. This way all the assertions and statements could be supported by giving full details of the sources from which they were derived.

Ranke differentiated between facts and interpretations. He emphasised the primacy of facts that were supported by the evidences based on the sources. The historians’ job is to first establish facts and then interpret them.

Through his interventions in the field of writing history, Ranke gave a professional status to the subject – of history. However, following the medieval historiographers, he believed that “In all history, God dwells, lives is to be seen”.

Auguste Comte and Positivism

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the French positivist philosopher. His full name was Isidore Auguste Marie Francois Xavier Comte. The aim of positivist philosophy was to liberate history from the hold of religion and metaphysics, and to make history to stand on its own base of historical laws. Comte wanted to introduce the scientific observations into the study of history

Important Books of Comte

§  A Plan for the Scientific Works Necessary to Recognize the Society,

§  Course of Positive Philosophy

§  System of Positive polity

His important contributions are:

                                                                                           

(i)     the adoption of positive or scientific method to history

(ii)   the law of the three stages of intellectual development – theological, metaphysical and scientific

(iii) the classification of sciences – Mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology

(iv)  Philosophy of each of the sciences prior to sociology

(v)    The synthesis of the system of positive philosophy

August Comte believed that the inductive method used in the natural sciences needed to be applied to the history as well as the humanities in general. He also claimed scientific status for the humanities. He thought that all societies operated through certain general laws which needed to be discovered. According to him, all societies historically passed through three stages of development. The three stages are:

(1)   The ‘theological’ or fictitious stage, during which the human mind was in its infancy and the natural phenomena were explained as the results of divine or supernatural powers. This stage has 3 sub stages – animism, polytheism and monotheism

(2)   The ‘metaphysical’ or abstract stage is transitional in the course of which the human mind passes through its adolescence. In this stage, the processes of nature were explained as arising from occult powers.

(3)   The ‘Positive’ stage which witnessed the maturity of human mind and the perfection of human knowledge. Now there was no longer a search for the causes of the natural phenomena but a quest for the discovery of their laws. Observation, reasoning and experimentation were the means to achieve this knowledge. This was the scientific age which is the final stage in the development of human societies as well as human minds.

Comte considered that the Positive stage was dominated by science and industry. In this age the scientists have replaced the theologians and the priests, and the industrialists, including traders, managers and financiers, have replaced the warriors. Comte believed in the absolute primacy of science. In the Positive stage, there is a search for the laws of various phenomena.

Comte arranged the sciences in order of their importance as Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Sociology. Each of these sciences depends upon the previous one. Sociology not only completes the series and acts as a guide in the reconstruction of the society. He thus laid the basis for social history.

            In the 19^th century a group of historians called the Positivists emerged. They believed in the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte. By philosophy of history, the positivist meant (a) Ascertaining facts (b) Framing laws. The historian was to ascertain facts through sensuous perception and then framing laws through generalization. Under this influence, a new kind of historiography arose called positivist historiography. ‘The historical process’ as R.G. Collingwood (1889-1943) says ‘for the positivists, was in kind identical with natural process, and that was why the methods of natural sciences were applicable to the interpretation of history’. Social and historical phenomena were also subject to certain ascertainable laws and open to treatment as in the case of natural sciences.

Ibn Khaldun

Ibn Khaldun (AD 1332-1406), is the most celebrated historian of the medieval period, belonging to the Arab historiography. He is well-known for his work Universal History.

Kitab-al-Ibar (Universal History)

The book consists of three great books.

1.      The first book treats civilization, its essential characteristics, and its influence on human beings.

2.      The second book tells the story of the Arabs with important and elaborate references to the history of all the nations from Central Asia to Italy.

3.      The third book covers the history of author's own Maghrib (northwest Africa)

Prefixed to these three books is the famous introduction called Prolegomena or Muqaddima, which deals with the science of history and the development of society. Al-Taarif, a short autobiography of the author is suffixed to this book.

In his Prolegomena, Khaldun analysed the science of history which he equates with the science of culture. Here he has explained the nature of historical facts, their relationship, trends and problems and variations, etc. For him, history is not merely the study of events but also their relations among themselves, their meaning and value. For this, a historian needs certain tools and the most important is the knowledge of the nature and causes of actual events, which comes under the science of culture. In this regard, first, he analysed the influence of the environment on social life. Secondly, he traced the origin and development of society through the ages and examined the impact of the past on the present. Thirdly, he gave emphasis psychological desires to determine social habits.

Khaldun classified all sciences into three groups:

1.      Theoretical – deals with the knowledge of the truth (Humanities)

2.      Practical – deals with the ability for practical action (Science)

3.      Productive – for the perfection of things (Technology)

The Science of Culture according to Khaldun is the mixture of all these three branches of knowledge.

In the first book of his Universal History, Khaldun analysed the influence of civilisation on man. In this part, he framed four necessary causes for the genesis of culture. They are:

1.  Material Cause: It consists of all the physical factors such as food, shelter, soil, climate, vegetation and all other material needs.

2.  Formal Cause: It is the instrument through which culture actually takes shape. Khaldun regarded State as the formal cause, which is responsible for shaping culture.

3.    Efficient Cause: It is an abstract idea. He regards solidarity, harmony, moderation and justice as efficient causes necessary for the growth of a culture.

4.   Final Cause: It is the idea of common goodness. A man should know the direction in which he is going, and his goal or destiny is happiness.

In other words, Khaldun holds economic factors as Material Cause, political factors as Formal Cause, social factors as Effective Cause and ethical or philosophical factors as Final Cause.

The importance of Ibn Khaldun is that he developed the sociological view of history. He also devised the critical evaluation of the sources to produce truthful accounts of the past.

St. Augustine and Christian Historiography

St. Augustine (AD 354-430), the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa was the greatest Church historiographer of the medieval period. He is well known for his work City of God and for his providential philosophy of history.

The Works of St. Augustine

Confessions

The Confessions is a spiritual autobiography. It covers the first 35 years of Augustine's life, with particular emphasis on Augustine's spiritual development and how he accepted Christianity. The text is directly addressed to God.

City of God (Click for a summary of the book)

This book is divided into 22 books, composed between 413 and 426 AD. The book was written mainly to defend Christianity. In AD 410,   King Alaric of the Vandals captured the city of Rome. The Romans considered their city eternal, so the collapse of the Roman Empire shocked them. Then the Pagan scholars blamed Christianity as the cause of the decline of the empire. St. Augustine wrote his work City of God to refute the arguments of the Pagans.

The first ten books of The City of God, which make up the first part of the work, refute the pagans’ charges that Christians brought about the fall of Rome. Augustine depicted the calamities suffered by the Romans before the coming of Christianity and argued that the Roamans became weak because of these gods. He argued that it was because of the sin of the people that the Roman Empire declined.

In the second part of the book, Augustine describes the doctrine of the two cities – one earthly and one heavenly. The first city is the City of God, the divine city founded by Angels, and its reflection is the holy church.  The second is the City of Man, the earthly city founded by Satan and its reflection is the state. Whatever God has done is so perfect and whatever man has done is imperfect. The earthly city is based on physical force, but the city of god is based on divine love. Man has devised a State with several forms of government but none of these is suited to man. Whereas God has devised church, his kingdom that enables man to attain perfect knowledge. Augustine gives the freedom to choose any one of these cities. According to him these cities are inextricably intermingled with each other and will not be separated until ‘the last judgment’. The book became the basis of catholic theology and formulated the dominant political theory of the Middle Ages. It was the first effort to propound the relationship between Church and State.   

The Providential Philosophy

According to the providential view, history was guided by the divine will. The divine will direct the destinies of mankind according to the cosmic order. Events, actions, and happenings were explained in terms of an intervening divine providence. The man had no control over his environment. It was championed by St. Augustine in his famous book ‘The City of God’. According to him, history is a constant conflict between the City of God and the City of Man. He contrasted the secular state (evil and transitory) with the kingdom of God (serene and eternal). The task of historical study is ‘to trace the steps by which one is slowly replaced by or transformed into the other’. These views constituted the Christian historical approach, held sway over the Middle Ages, and shaped the course of Christian historical thought.

Postmodern Challenge on History

Postmodernism offers a fundamental critique of the conventional mode of history-writing. Sometimes the critique becomes so radical that it almost becomes anti-history. The main ingredient of history-writing, such as facts, sources, documents, archival records, etc., all come under severe scrutiny under the microscope of postmodernist vision.

Postmodernism rejects the ‘objectivist’ tradition of history writing starting with Ranke who strove to recover the past ‘as it actually was’. It has attacked history both in its grander versions as well as in its relatively modest versions. It challenges the proclaimed objectivity and neutrality of historians and claims that the process of interpretation transforms the past in radically different ways.

Postmodernism questions the very basis of conventional historiography by locating its origins in modern Europe’s encounter with the other. It began with the European Renaissance which prompted the Europeans to ‘discover’ other lands and people. In this quest, the ‘history’ served as a tool for posing the modern western self in opposition to the other whose history was supposed to be just beginning as a result of its encounter with Europe. Thus the practice of history was employed not just to study the past but to fashion it in terms of the criteria set by modern Europe. History, therefore, evolved into a western quest for power over the colonized territories and its desire to appropriate their pasts.

Postmodernism rejects the grand narrative of history which visualises that the human society is moving in a certain direction, toward an ultimate goal. According to postmodernism, there is no historical truth but what the historians make it out to be, no facts except what the historians interpret, and no representable past except what the historians construct. In the postmodernist view, history can be accepted as genuine knowledge only if it sheds its claims to truth and hence to power and accepts its fragmentary character. The only history possible is micro history.

The postmodern theorists question the very basis on which the discipline of history has been based. They do not believe in the disciplinary boundaries in academics, such as those between history and literature, or between economics and anthropology, and so on. They also question the existence of facts and events apart from what the historians make them out to be. In their view, linguistic representation becomes the essence of the past and the core of history.

End of the autonomous subject, of history and of absolute truth: This is a well-known “slogan” associated with postmodernism. The meaning is this: By “end of history,” postmoderns mean three things: They question the assumption that human beings are progressing to an even better state of being or society. A later stage of history can be worse than the previous one. Secondly, they look at historiography (the writing of history) critically. What we have is not raw history, but historiography done by particular nations or persons or cultures. We do not have anyone objective of knowing or writing history. Thus, the history of the British Period in India would look different when written by an English historian— especially one who believed in the superiority of British culture or in the right of conquest—or by an Indian who saw colonization as immoral. Thirdly, postmoderns do not believe that history has a direction or unity. They think rather that the events that make up history are of too many different kinds to fit into anyone's coherent whole.

Postmodernists treated all documents and facts are nothing but texts and ideologically constructed. There are even more extreme views within postmodernism with regard to historiography. Keith Jenkins, therefore, declares that ‘we are now at a postmodern moment when we can forget history completely.’ This extreme position questions the very existence of any kind of professional history writing.

Critique of Postmodernism

The postmodernist critique of modernity ranges from total rejection to partial acceptance.

• The critiques have pointed out that in some extreme forms of postmodern relativism, the implication may be that ‘anything goes’.
• Moreover, the postmodern analysis of society and culture is lop-sided because it emphasises the tendencies towards fragmentation while completely ignoring the equally important movements towards synthesisation and the broader organisation.
• It also tends to ignore the roles of state and capital as much more potent tools of domination and repression.
• Some critics also charge postmodernism with being historicist as it accepts the inevitability of the present and its supposedly postmodernist character. If the world is now postmodern, it is our fate to be living in it. But such postmodernity that the western world has created now is no more positive than the earlier social formation it is supposed to have superseded.
• Moreover, it is not very sure whether modernity has actually come to an end. In fact, large parts of the world in the erstwhile colonial and semi-colonial societies and East European countries are now busy modernizing themselves. The concept of postmodernity, therefore, remains mostly at an academic and intellectual level.
• Critics also argue that many postmodernists, deriving from poststructuralism, deny the possibility of knowing facts and reality. As a result, no event can be given any weightage over another. All happenings in the past are of the same value. 

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is generally considered a research indicator. It is a tentative explanation of the research problem or a guess about the research outcome. The hypothesis is usually considered the principal instrument in research. It helps social scientists to suggest a theory that may explain and predict the events. The hypothesis is like a formal research question intends to resolve. The hypotheses in historical research are useful in explaining events, conditions, or phenomena of the period in question. Hypotheses are particularly necessary for studies where cause and effect relationships are to be discovered. The hypotheses for historical research may not be formal hypotheses to be tested. They are written as explicit statements that tentatively explain the occurrence of events and conditions. According to Borg, without hypotheses, historical research often becomes little more than an aimless gathering of facts.

Functions or Importance of Hypotheses

• Provides a clear focus to research
• Helps in selecting and collecting relevant facts
• Helps to explain the research problem
• Offers a temporary answer to the research question
• Provides a structure and operational directions to research
• Helps to suggest a theory that may explain and predict events
• Provides the framework for drawing conclusions

 The hypothesis can be of two types:

1. Explanatory hypothesis – this is especially used in finding outlaws or formulas acting in history
2. Descriptive hypothesis – this is used for making a complex mass of facts, that are isolated from one another

 Developing Working Hypotheses

After an extensive literature survey, the researcher should state in clear terms the working hypothesis or hypotheses. A working hypothesis can be framed through:

 a)     Review of similar studies in the area or of the studies on similar problems

 b)     Examination of available data and records

 c)      Discussions with colleagues and experts about the problem

 d)     Preliminary personal investigation of the research problem

Working hypotheses are more useful when stated in precise and clearly defined terms. Hypotheses act as a step toward research work. Thus, working hypotheses arise as a result of pre-thinking about the subject.

 Characteristics of hypothesis

 A hypothesis must possess the following characteristics:

• It should be clear and precise. If the hypothesis is not clear and precise, the inferences drawn on its basis cannot be taken as reliable.
• It should be limited in scope and must be specific. No vague terms should be used in the formulation of a hypothesis.
• It should be stated as far as possible in the most simple terms so that the same is easily understandable by all concerned.
• It should be consistent with the most known facts. It should not conflict with any law of nature which is known to be true.
• It should be empirically testable. It should be capable of being tested whether it is right or wrong.
• It should be conceptually clear. The concepts used in the hypothesis should be clearly defined
• It should describe one issue only. It can be framed either in descriptive or relational form.
• It should be related to available techniques and methods.
• It should not be contradictory.

 Testing/Validating Hypothesis

It is generally considered that at the end of the research, the researcher should test the hypothesis. A hypothesis, when empirically proved, helps us in testing an existing theory. This should be done with the empirical evidences analyzed and interpreted during the research. This testing of the hypothesis allows the researcher to verify existing knowledge, fact, or theory as to right or wrong. In other words, when a hypothesis is tested, it aimed to support or reject an existing theory or facts. It also explains the empirical conditions in which the theory is accepted or rejected. Each time a hypothesis is tested empirically, it tells us something about the phenomenon it is associated with. If the hypothesis is empirically supported, then our information about the phenomenon increases. Even if the hypothesis is refuted, the test tells us something about the phenomenon we did not know before. A hypothesis, after its testing, may highlight the positive and negative aspects of the existing social or legislative policy. In such a situation, the tested hypothesis helps us in formulating (or reformulating) a social policy. It may also suggest or hint at probable solutions to the existing social problem(s) and their implementation.

Appendix

An appendix (one item) or appendices (more than one item) is/are the important reference materials category. Appendices are always supplementary to the research paper.  An appendix contains supplementary material that is not an essential part of the main body of the text. It includes the material which cannot be logically included in the main body of the text. A separate appendix should be used for each distinct topic or set of data and always have a title descriptive of its contents. The appendix serves the function of providing greater clarity and authenticity for the readers of the report. Never include an appendix that isn’t referred to in the text. All appendices should be summarized in your paper where it is relevant to the content.

Appendix usually includes:

• supporting evidence (preferably a copy of the primary documents like orders, letters, etc.)
• technical figures, graphs, tables, statistics
• a detailed description of research instruments
• maps, charts, photographs, drawings
• questionnaires/surveys 
• transcripts of interviews

               

Uses of Appendices:

• The appendix helps the researcher to display the relevant original source materials used for the study
• The appendix can provide additional information regarding the study
• Too lengthy information can be given in the appendix without affecting the main body of the text
• The researcher can give supporting documents in the appendix for validating his arguments.
• Can be used when there are constraints placed on the length of your paper.

Format for giving Appendix:

• Appendices may place at the end of the main body of the text
• Appendices should be arranged sequentially (preferably in Roman numbers) by the order they were first referenced in the text
• Each appendix begins on a new page
• The heading should be "Appendix," followed by a letter or number [e.g., "Appendix A" or "Appendix 1"], centered and written in bold type.
• Appendices must be listed in the table of contents [if used].
• The page number(s) of the appendix/appendices will continue with the numbering from the last page of the text.

Ontology

Ontology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence and the construction of reality. In another sense, it deals with the nature and structure of “reality”. It is also considered the fundamental branch of philosophy that deals with the existence or non-existence of things. Some of the basic questions in the ontology are:

 ü  What is being?

ü  How do we determine if things exist or not?

ü  Is everything that exists real?

ü  What is the meaning and nature of reality?

ü  What is true?

ü  What do we think the truth is?

The term Ontology combines two Greek words ‘Onto’, which means existence or being real, and ‘Logia’, which means science or study. Thus, etymologically, ontology means the study of being or existence. Ontology is the study of things that exist, especially things whose existence is logically brought about by a theory (for example the existence of God). Ontology studies the first principle of the essence of all things. Aristotle called it the “first philosophy”.

In more recent analytical philosophy, ontology refers to the study of ‘what is’. Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche and Gilles Deleuze made poplar contributions to the understanding of ontology. Edmund Husserl, a German philosopher and mathematician see ontology as a ‘science of essences’.

The two essential branches of philosophical ontology are Ontological Materialism and Ontological Idealism.

§  Ontological Materialism is the belief that material things are more real than the human mind.

§  Ontological Idealism is the belief that the human mind and consciousness are more real than material things.

Further, there are branches of ontological realism and ontological relativism.

 ü  Realist believes that one truth exists. Truth does not change. Truth can be discovered through objective measurement. It is generalizable. Thus, it believes in objectivism. 

ü  Relativists believe in multiple versions of reality shaped by the context. What is real depends on the meaning you attach to the truth. Truth does not exist without meaning. Truth evolves and changes depending on your experiences. Truth is created by meanings and experiences. Thus, it believes in constructionism.

Historical Ontology

Historical ontology concerns the historian’s construction of historical facts or reality. The question is about the conditions of being under which we create the past- as - history. Historian is necessarily an ontological creature who has prejudices, preconceptions, and beliefs about the nature of existence. Historians use several ways to create ‘ontology-free’ historical knowledge. The important approaches are:

            (1) The positivist approach – the way of covering laws

(2) The empiricist-objectivist approach – past is represented through evidence

(3) Relativist approach – links historical events together to establish realism

(4) The inductive approach – establishes truth conditions

The outcome is that the reality of the past is accessible, but it is not free from the ontological positions of historians.  Frank R. Ankersmit argued that historians write ‘not in epistemological but ontological terms’. Ontology will always get in the way of ‘knowing the past’.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, or ‘the theory of interpretation,’ deals with the principles and processes instrumental in the course of interpretation, especially the interpretation of texts. Etymologically, the word, ‘hermeneutics’ is derived from the Greek verb hermeneuein and the noun hermeneia, to mean ‘to interpret’ or ‘interpretation’. Mythologically, it is related to Hermes, the Greek winged god, whose chief function was to interpret the messages of the Gods for human beings. Traditionally, it is linked to the rules for the interpretation of texts, especially the sacred and legal ones. The principles and processes relating to interpretation are quite relevant in humanities, particularly history. When Nietzsche said that “there are no facts but only interpretations,” he underlined the fundamental nature of the hermeneutic effort in history. After the linguistic and postmodern turn, the thinkers proposed a variety of possible interpretations to a text. According to Roland Barthes, “the author must die so that the reader may live.” In short, hermeneutics is the art of discovering meaning. The important hermeneutical thinkers are Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. 

Key Thinkers

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who may be considered to be the ‘father of contemporary hermeneutics’ stressed the ‘Romantic’ aspect of the imaginary, creative, and emotional dimensions which come into play in the pronunciation and interpretation of texts. His philosophical hermeneutics had two aspects: a subjective or ‘psychological’ aspect and an objective or ‘grammatical’ aspect. The first belongs to the system of thought and the second to the system of language.

Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), who was influenced by the positivistic spirit of the late nineteenth century, distinguished between the knowledge of the natural and the human sciences. To him, nature needed to be explained, while history needed to be understood. He hoped to formulate systematic rules for understanding historical phenomena, just as natural scientists had formulated systematic rules for explaining natural phenomena.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), in Being and Time (1927), viewed understanding as a foundational aspect of one’s contextual situatedness or ‘being-in-the-world.’ Heidegger presented the process of understanding in terms of a projection of ontological (being in the world) possibilities rather than a fixed mental correspondence with reality.

Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) in his major work, Truth and Method (1960), clearly gives priority to ‘truth’ rather than the use of ‘method’ in the process of interpretation. Methodology indirectly adopts perspective-free objectivity which Gadamer argues is impossible.

Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) agreed that there is always a ‘surplus of meaning’. In his later works, Ricoeur creatively expands the scope of hermeneutical theory to include the interpretation of human actions and narratives, to the extent that they have intellectual and communicative value.

Primary Themes within Hermeneutics

There are three primary dimensions of interpretation, viz., explanation, understanding and application.

Explanation: The focus of the explanation is on the validity of textual meaning. In explanation, the text is treated more like a window, whereby one sees through a text in order to explore its nature and origins, rather than like a mirror, wherein one stands before a text in order to understand it from within a particular context and guided by personal and social interests. Schleiermacher and Dilthey tend to focus on the ‘behind’ of the text so as to arrive at textual meaning in terms of the original intention of the author. In contrast to this position, Gadamer focuses primarily on the ‘forward’ of the text, or how it may be understood by various readers in various contexts. Ricoeur partially combines both of these positions.

Understanding: The question in understanding is about the nature of the hermeneutical circle or spiral. In the circular movement in hermeneutics, one cannot understand the whole text unless one becomes familiar with individual parts of the text, and one cannot understand the parts unless one has a sense of the whole. This circle becomes a spiral when a progressive interplay between the whole and the parts leads to a better understanding of both.

Application: It deals with the contextual application of interpretation. A balanced hermeneutical approach would employ both explanation and critique in order to arrive at more accurate, meaningful and objective interpretations of the text and of social phenomena in general.

Another theme of significance within interpretation theory is that of the contrast between the hermeneutics of trust and the hermeneutics of suspicion. The hermeneutics of trust functions from an ‘understanding’- based standpoint. The hermeneutics of suspicion functions from the perspective of critical theory. According to Ricoeur, the ‘masters of suspicion,’ are Marx (1818-1883), Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Freud (1856-1939). Each of them attempts radical questioning and even a rejection of what is commonly accepted.