Semiotics and Thematics in Hermeneutics (1982)
The interpretive principles of Seung’s theory of cultural thematics are most clearly stated in his article “Thematic Dialectic: A Revision of Hegelian Dialectic”, which makes up the last chapter of his book Semiotics and Thematics in Hermeneutics. Seung defines this theory as thematic dialectic, since it formally involves a revision of Hegel’s dialectic as often identified with the triadic formula of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Various scholars have argued that Hegel does not explicate this formula systematically or apply it consistently in his work. The triad is mentioned only a few times in his writings and mainly in his polemic against the logical formalism of Kant’s critical idealism. For that reason, Hegelian scholars sometimes maintain that the formula is neither Hegel’s invention nor the constituting pattern of his philosophy. This discussion, however, is not important for understanding the theory of thematic dialectic. The theory departs from the assertion that Hegel’s system is meant to be a systematic account of how every dialectical conflict is reconciled through the synthesis of thesis and antithesis. The classical example of this pattern of thought, as stated in Hegel’s Science of Logic (I.1.1), is that the concept of being and the concept of non-being are reconciled in the concept of becoming.
The theory of thematic dialectic is not an attempt to restate Hegel’s theory, nor its Marxian offspring in the form of dialectical materialism. Though adapting the Hegelian logic of “both-and” in combination with the Kierkegaardian logic of “either-or” as well as the Buddhist logic of “neither-nor,” the theory breaks open the narrow perimeter that has been set by Hegel, Marx, and Kierkegaard in that it transforms the rigidity of the Hegelian system into flexibility, its uniformity into diversity, and its logical necessity into existential contingency. The theory adapts Hegel’s notion of historical dialectic in that it departs from Hegel’s inexhaustible idea that every cultural theme has its dialectical opposite:
“For example, the cultural theme of regarding nature as an object of contempt and defilement is dialectically opposed to that of adoring it as an object of beauty and sanctity. These two cultural themes are incompatible with each other, because they are contraries. That is, if one of them is to be realized, the other must be rejected. The opposition of these two cultural themes may be called thematic exclusion or contrariety. Theirs is the dialectic of incompatible or incommensurate themes.”
This type of opposition resembles the Kantian notion of antinomy. However, we are not dealing with pure concepts but with propositions. One proposition can say that nature is adorable, and another proposition can say that nature is contemptuous. Thematic exclusion is the classical form of "either-or."
The theory of thematic dialectic is resourceful in outlining the ways in which the problem of opposition can be resolved. In this respect, it deviates from Hegel’s historicism in that it gives a systematic account of the interplay of cultural themes that does not rely on a rigid conception of synthesis. Cultural themes are cultural ideals. For example, the atheist ideal of rejecting the existence of God is a cultural theme, and the theist ideal of believing in the existence of God is another cultural theme. These two ideals exclude each other. But in some cases, their mutual exclusion is not fully sustained. Seung argues that thematic exclusion should be distinguished from thematic tension or competition:
“For example, the cultural theme of being concerned with the other world is not necessarily incompatible with the cultural theme of being concerned with this world, because one does not logically exclude the other. That is, it is possible for someone to be concerned with both worlds. But these two cultural themes can be in competition with each other, and their competition can create tension. Nevertheless, theirs is the dialectic of compatible or commensurate themes.”
The dialectic of cultural themes is their tension, conflict, and interaction. But thematic tension can be resolved in different ways. The Hegelian way of synthesis or “both-and” is one way to resolve it. The Kierkegaardian way of exclusion or “either-or” is another way—that is, given the two cultural ideals it resolves their conflict by rejecting one of them. A third way is to reject both ideals, which has been the Buddhist approach. This is the way of “neither-nor” in contrast to the way of “either-or”, which, in turn, is contrasted to the way of “both-and.” However, these three ways do not cover all types of resolution.
According to the theory of thematic dialectic, the forms of thematic tension fall in two principal groups, each of which is divided into three main positions. On the one hand, we have the group of dualistic resolutions, and on the other hand, we have the group of monistic resolutions. The former are dualistic in that they accept the existence of two competing themes, and the latter are monistic in that they do not accept the existence of two competing themes. The dualistic group consists of (1) resolution by equilibrium, (2) resolution by suppression, and (3) resolution by subordination. The monistic group consists of (4) resolution by fusion, (5) resolution by elimination, and (6) resolution by absorption. If we add to these six forms of resolution the form of exclusion, the theory of thematic dialectic denotes, in all, seven ways in which the interplay of dialectical opposites can take place. The systematic quality of the theory is manifest, for example, in the fact that the resolution by equilibrium is the dualistic counterpart to the monistic resolution by fusion, the resolution by suppression is the dualistic counterpart to the monistic resolution by elimination, and the resolution by subordination is the dualistic counterpart to the monistic resolution by absorption.
The resolution by equilibrium is to keep two conflicting themes in balance. It can be used for achieving a balance between two competing interests, for example, “the conflict between the private interests of individuals and the public interests of their community can be resolved in this manner. Both interests can be regarded as equally important, and their conflict can be resolved by maintaining a proper balance between them.” Resolution by suppression denotes that one theme suppresses another, and resolution by subordination denotes that one theme is subordinated to another. In explaining their difference, Seung takes the medieval ideal of contemptus mundi as the example:
“Concern for this world was to be totally suppressed for the sake of concern for the other world. By the twelfth century, this resolution was being replaced by another: secular concern was not to be suppressed but only to be subordinated to religious concern. This is resolution by subordination. Resolution by suppression was acceptable, as long as the medieval Christians took no strong interest in the natural order. Once they started taking a positive attitude toward nature, this resolution became difficult to maintain and had to be superseded by the resolution by subordination.”
Resolutions by equilibrium, suppression, and subordination are well known phenomena in our time. But it is most often the resolutions by suppression and subordination that make the headlines because they involve an uneven relationship between two ideals that often disturbs the culturally contingent sense of democracy and equality in Western societies. However, although these dualistic forms of resolution are prominent, they do not cover the whole spectrum of thematic dialectic.
The resolution by fusion means to fuse two conflicting themes into one. For example, the idea of a supernatural order can be fused with the idea of a natural order by making the former immanent in the latter, as it was advocated in the Romantic idea of natural supernaturalism or supernatural naturalism. Resolution by elimination denotes that one theme eliminates another. Extreme scientism is an example of this type of resolution. By looking upon physical things from a strictly positivistic and materialist point of view, the scientistic position eradicates every spiritual experience and reduces all things to physical matter. Scientific materialism is reductive; it reduces mind to matter. The opposite reduction is also possible; it is to reduce matter to mind. This is also a resolution by elimination. Unlike these reductive methods, the resolution by fusion rejects reduction. But all of them produce a monistic result. The last type of resolution is the resolution by absorption, which denotes that one theme absorbs another. This type of resolution is perhaps the most difficult to comprehend because it can easily get mistaken for the resolution by fusion. In Seung’s words:
“Although both modes produce monistic results, they differ in one important respect. In resolution by fusion, the two competing cultural themes operate as equals; both lose their original identities in the process of fusion and gain a joint identity. In resolution by absorption, the two competing themes operate as unequals; only one can retain its original identity and integrity, while the other must lose them.”
Seung explains the resolution by absorption as it was used for resolving the conflict between individual and communal interests. This conflict can be resolved in different ways. For example, it can be resolved by the resolution by equilibrium. But Seung points out that this resolution became impossible with the emergence of the sovereign individual in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
“because the sovereign will of the individual could not be retained and preserved in such an equilibrium. It dictated the subordination of communal interests to the individual will, but even this resolution was not quite perfect from the standpoint of individual sovereignty, because it could not fully eliminate the thematic tension between the individual and the communal interests.”
This tension, however, was resolved by making the one absorb the other. The political idea that people can form a commonwealth if they subject their wills to the will of one individual is an example of individual absorption of communal interests. This is the idea of absolute monarchy and enlightened absolutism, which governed European politics from the 17th to 19th century. The political idea that the interests of the individuals cannot be distinguished from the interests of the state is an example of communal absorption of individual interests. This idea was pervasive in the communist states of the 20th century. Moreover, Seung points out that these two types of absorption can be joined. Nazism is a case in point: “the individual interests of all citizens were absorbed into the interests of the state or the race, which in turn were absorbed into the interests of the Führer.” The cults of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong are other examples, although they might differ in formal terms from that of Adolf Hitler in that the General Secretary did not have officially the same status as that of the Nazi leader.
Besides being a systematic account of the various types of resolution, the theory of thematic dialectic is also a systematic theory of how to deal with the problem of consequence in considering the interplay of dialectical opposites. Seung argues that “the resolution of a thematic conflict establishes the dominance of some cultural theme or themes, which can produce certain thematic consequences. These consequences can also take various forms.” He outlines six forms of thematic consequence: (1) continuance: a cultural theme maintains its dominance over another cultural theme; (2) expansion: a cultural theme expands its dominance over another cultural theme; (3) reaction: a cultural theme reacts against the dominance of another cultural theme; (4) reversal: the dominance of a cultural theme over another is reversed; (5) repression: one cultural theme represses another cultural theme; and (6) deterioration: a cultural theme deteriorates and is replaced by another cultural theme.
These cultural events can take place in various historical contexts. There is no simple schema for causally linking one of these events to another. Seung stresses the variety of possibilities in his discussion of thematic conflicts, their resolutions, and their consequences. In short, his account of thematic dialectic is highly existential and contingent, whereas Hegel's account was logical and necessatarian. Though critical of Hegel’s logical necessitarianism that every dialectical conflict can be resolved only by way of synthesis, Seung does not reject the assertion that thematic resolutions may be determined by historical causes and conditions operating on the thematic conflicts. In this sense, the historical determinism that governs Hegel’s historical dialectic is integrated as one option among several others in the theory of thematic dialectic.
Read more about this topic: T. K. Seung