Can You Understand the Parts Without the Whole? A Problem Without an Exit
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
Understanding any part of a text requires a sense of the whole, and the whole is built from the parts, which looks like a vicious circle. Working out why it is not is a central problem in the theory of interpretation.
What the difficulty is
A sentence takes its meaning partly from the work it appears in, since the same words mean different things in a legal document, a poem and a joke, and knowing which reading applies requires already knowing something about the whole. The whole, however, is available only through its parts, since a reader assembles a sense of what a work is doing by reading the sentences. So understanding the part presupposes the whole and understanding the whole presupposes the parts. Stated flatly this looks like circular reasoning of the kind that invalidates an argument, and the response of the tradition has not been to escape the circle but to argue that it is the shape of understanding rather than a fault in it.
How the circle is entered
Interpretation proceeds by revision rather than by starting from nothing:
- •A reader begins with an anticipation of what the whole is likely to be
- •That anticipation comes from genre, context, prior reading and ordinary expectation
- •Reading the parts confirms, adjusts or overturns the anticipation
- •The revised sense of the whole changes how subsequent parts are read
- •Passages that resist the current reading are the productive ones
- •The process settles when the reading accommodates the parts without strain
What the tradition argued about it
The problem was formulated within biblical and classical scholarship and then generalised. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the early nineteenth century treated interpretation as a discipline applying to any text and described the movement between part and whole explicitly. Wilhelm Dilthey extended it into a method for the human sciences generally, arguing that understanding human products differs in kind from explaining natural events. Martin Heidegger radicalised it by arguing that the circle is not a property of reading but of existence, since anyone who understands anything does so from within a situation they did not choose. Hans-Georg Gadamer developed that into the position that prior assumptions are the condition of understanding rather than an obstacle, and that interpretation is a conversation in which the reader's expectations are exposed and altered.
Where it shows up outside philosophy
The pattern appears wherever anything has to be understood as a whole made of parts. Learning a language works this way, since the meaning of a word is grasped from sentences containing it while those sentences are understood through their words, which is why immersion works and why a dictionary alone does not. Legal interpretation runs the same circle between a clause and the statute containing it, and courts have explicit doctrines about reading a provision in the light of the whole instrument. Archaeologists interpret an object through a site and the site through its objects. Diagnosis in medicine moves between a symptom and a developing picture of what is wrong. In each case the practitioners have developed working rules for when a reading has settled, which is the practical form of the same problem.
The objection and the reply
The obvious complaint is that this licenses reading anything into anything, since a reader arrives with expectations, and those expectations shape what is found. If prior assumptions determine the reading, the text cannot correct the reader, and interpretation becomes a mirror. The reply is that assumptions are not immune to the material, since a reading that keeps colliding with what is actually on the page becomes unsustainable and the collisions are exactly what produces revision. Good interpretation is distinguished by its willingness to let the text resist, and the mark of a poor one is that nothing ever surprises the interpreter. Whether that reply is sufficient has been argued continuously, with critics holding that it supplies no criterion capable of settling a disagreement between two readings.
The takeaway
Parts are understood through a sense of the whole and the whole is assembled from the parts, which looks circular and is the ordinary shape of understanding. A reader begins with an anticipation drawn from context and genre, then revises it as passages resist. Heidegger and Gadamer treated prior assumptions as the condition of understanding rather than an obstacle, which critics say leaves no way to settle a disagreement.