How we enter into the domain of interpretive possibility is the question that animates the discipline of hermeneutics, a field of study that originated in Biblical exegesis and that questions the relations between interpreter and text, part and whole, intention and reception. Such a of line of inquiry has been integral to literary studies, and a heightened awareness of interpretive positions has putatively been a dominant feature of the literary criticism of the past several decades. Much of that criticism has taken some degree of guidance from what Paul Ricoeur dubbed the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” a mode of criticism that finds its roots in the work of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, and that looks to unmask the operations of power in texts by rendering some latent meaning manifest.

More recent work, however, has called into question the interpretive positions that have figured heavily in such criticism. Eve Sedgwick highlighted a dimension of paranoia in the work of the suspicious hermeneuticists, and sketched out a mode of reparative reading that looks to reclaim appreciative modes of interpretation from the critical approaches of much contemporary practice. Similarly Rita Felski has recently questioned the “limits of critique,” and sought to explore what criticism might look like were it to avoid the negative gestures of critique. Best and Marcus, drawing on actor-network theory, have advocated “surface reading,” a style of reading that forgoes the depth metaphors operative in the hermeneutics of suspicion in favor of a model that addresses points of interaction along a lateral continuum.

All of this work suggests that the field of literary studies is at a unique juncture, and the goal of this panel is to develop a conversation about where we are in our contemporary efforts to interpret literary texts, and where we are in our understanding of our own interpretive positions. To what extent, and under what circumstances, is a hermeneutics of suspicion still needed? What new avenues of inquiry do non-suspicious models make available, and what are the fruits of exploring those avenues? How do we locate a notion of responsibility in our interpretive positions if we eschew suspicion, and how do we approach texts that belong to a different epoch in light of contemporary concerns without exceeding the bounds of responsible interpretation? These are among the questions that this panel addresses.

The papers in this panel all raise the question of interpretation in light of different facets of our contemporary social, political and historical circumstances. Erin Greer’s work represents an effort to explore a line of literary interpretation in light of Brexit, and to find what politically constructive potentials literary criticism might offer in light of the fracturing of Europe; through a reading of Ali Smith’s recent novel Autumn, she posits a “liberal hermeneutics” that seeks to locate a “liberal, British common sense” through an act of literary interpretation. This paper engages Felski’s work by positing an interpretive model that does not derive from the negativity of critique, but rather one that looks toward the establishing of a new interpretive community. Julie Orlemanski takes a different approach to the historicity of interpretative positions. In addressing medieval literature in light of contemporary issues of race and disability she questions how we can read texts in light of contemporary concerns while negotiating a notion of responsibility and historical fidelity in interpretation. She thereby explores the enactment of meaning that occurs in interpretation across time periods, and raises the question of how the past can be animated by contemporary interpretative needs, within the bounds of responsible practice. Timothy Lem-Smith’s paper looks to counter Felski’s devaluation of suspicion through a reading of Colson Whiteheads novel, The Intuitionist. Lem-Smith suggests that the element of race in Whitehead’s detective novel illuminates a unique facet of interpretive paranoia; by analyzing a novel that thematizes interpretation in an atmosphere of racial repression he looks to reclaim a space for suspicious readings, and looks to show that paranoid models of interpretation are still open to new inflections.

Each presentation will be rigorously limited to 13-15 minutes for their presentation; Moshe Gold will then respond to those presentations for 13-15 minutes; the remaining 15-20 minutes of the session will be devoted to discussion. This panel brings into dialogue scholars working on different national literatures and different epochs in an effort to address a topic that is fundamental to the field of literary criticism and that concerns all scholars working in literary studies today.