“What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout

“What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout first appeared in 1982 in New Literary History, Vol. 14, No. 1, under the thematic issue “Problems of Literary Theory.” Published by Johns Hopkins University Press, this influential article scrutinizes the very question of textual meaning and challenges the premise that seeking a definitive answer to “What is the meaning of a text?” is a productive endeavor. Instead, Stout proposes that such an inquiry might mislead interpreters by focusing on an abstract and ambiguous concept rather than on practical interpretative questions. By examining the hermeneutical and theoretical assumptions surrounding textual meaning, Stout contends that discussions about meaning are often convoluted and, at times, unresolvable. He suggests that interpretative theory would benefit from focusing on authorial intention or contextual significance rather than an elusive “meaning.”

Stout’s argument holds significance in the fields of literature and literary theory because it advocates a pragmatic approach to interpretation, resonating with Quine’s idea of “explication as elimination.” This pragmatic view emphasizes the utility of interpretation over the search for an essential meaning. Stout’s work influenced subsequent debates in hermeneutics, moving away from essentialist definitions of meaning toward pluralistic approaches that respect the diversity of interpretative interests and contexts. This shift challenges traditional hermeneutics and opens doors to more flexible, contextual, and purpose-driven interpretations, reshaping how scholars approach texts across disciplines.

Summary of “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout

Theoretical Term/Concept	Description	Relevance in Stout’s Argument
Explication as Elimination	Concept from W.V. Quine suggesting the substitution of ambiguous terms with clearer alternatives.	Stout advocates for “eliminating” complex terms like “meaning” to reduce confusion and foster clearer interpretations (Stout, p. 2).
Hermeneutics	The study of interpretation, especially of texts and symbols.	Stout critiques traditional hermeneutics for its focus on the concept of “meaning,” which he argues is often misleading (Stout, p. 1).
Authorial Intention	The author’s intended meaning or purpose in writing a text.	Stout suggests focusing on authorial intention as a clearer interpretative focus than abstract “meaning” (Stout, p. 3).
Contextual Significance	The significance or meaning of a text within a particular context.	Stout proposes contextual significance as an alternative interpretative lens, which varies depending on the interpretative frame (Stout, p. 4).
Verbal Disagreement	Disputes that arise from differences in language use rather than substantive differences in meaning.	Stout claims that much of the debate around textual meaning is merely verbal disagreement and could be minimized by eliminating ambiguous terms (Stout, p. 5).
Interests and Purposes	The goals and motivations that drive interpreters in their analysis.	Stout argues that interpretation should be guided by the interpreter’s specific interests rather than by a search for an abstract meaning (Stout, p. 6).
Pragmatic Approach	A practical method that emphasizes utility and purpose over abstract theorizing.	Stout endorses a pragmatic approach to interpretation, suggesting interpretations should serve concrete purposes (Stout, p. 10).
Textualism	A perspective that focuses on the text itself, often rejecting abstract meanings.	Stout aligns with textualism to an extent, advocating for an interpretation that centers on the text’s contextual elements rather than a “meaning” (Stout, p. 9).
Heyday of Meanings	A phrase by Ian Hacking referring to the late 19th century when meaning was a central focus across disciplines.	Stout references this to contextualize the historical shift away from “meaning” as an essential interpretative concept (Stout, p. 8).
Multiplicity of Interpretations	The idea that texts can and should be interpreted in multiple ways, based on different interests and contexts.	Stout supports this, suggesting that multiple interpretations reveal the richness of a text (Stout, p. 11).

Contribution of “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout to Literary Theory/Theories

• Challenge to Essentialism in Interpretation
  • Stout argues against the essentialist notion that texts contain an inherent “true” meaning, suggesting instead that interpretation is subjective and guided by specific interests (Stout, p. 1).
  • This contribution challenges traditional theories that focus on discovering a single “core” meaning of texts, promoting a more pluralistic approach to interpretation.
• Shift from Meaning to Pragmatism
  • Stout’s pragmatic approach aligns interpretation with specific, context-driven purposes rather than an abstract pursuit of meaning, drawing on Quine’s idea of “explication as elimination” (Stout, p. 2).
  • This perspective has influenced pragmatic and reader-response theories by emphasizing the functional role of interpretation tailored to readers’ purposes rather than an objective meaning within the text.
• Redefinition of Hermeneutics
  • Stout redefines hermeneutics by suggesting that it should not focus on “meaning” as an abstract entity but rather on understanding authorial intentions and contextual significance (Stout, p. 3-4).
  • This approach provides an alternative framework for hermeneutical theory, positioning it within a more flexible interpretative practice that embraces contextual variability.
• Support for Textualism
  • Stout implicitly aligns with textualism by proposing that interpretation should focus on what the text reveals through its language and structure, avoiding abstract constructs of “meaning” (Stout, p. 9).
  • This resonates with New Criticism and structuralist theories that emphasize the text itself, though Stout adds the dimension of contextual analysis, broadening textualism to include varying interpretative contexts.
• Advocacy for Interpretative Pluralism
  • Stout’s suggestion that texts can and should yield multiple interpretations based on differing interests and purposes advances interpretative pluralism (Stout, p. 11).
  • This contribution aligns with post-structuralist and reader-response theories, which view texts as open to diverse readings, depending on the reader’s background, goals, and interpretative framework.
• Verbal Disagreement and Constructive Discourse
  • Stout’s analysis of “verbal disagreement” suggests that much of the conflict in literary theory arises from linguistic ambiguity rather than genuine theoretical divergence (Stout, p. 5).
  • This insight encourages a reframing of theoretical debates in literary theory, fostering constructive dialogue and a recognition of shared interpretative goals across theories.
• Critique of Universal Hermeneutic Methods
  • Stout critiques the concept of a single, universal method for interpretation, as he believes diverse interpretative interests make a universal hermeneutic approach impractical (Stout, p. 7).
  • This stance contributes to the ongoing dialogue in literary theory about the flexibility and adaptability of interpretative methods, reinforcing arguments for theory-specific methodologies in interpretation.

Examples of Critiques Through “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout

Literary Work	Critique Approach Through Stout’s Lens	Explanation and Relevance
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	Authorial Intention vs. Contextual Significance	Instead of solely focusing on Hamlet’s “true” psychological motivations, an interpreter might consider Shakespeare’s intentions alongside the broader cultural and historical context, such as Elizabethan beliefs about revenge, duty, and madness. This shifts interpretation from finding a definitive meaning to understanding layered cultural implications and authorial purpose (Stout, p. 3-4).
George Orwell’s 1984	Pragmatic Interpretation for Political Relevance	Applying Stout’s pragmatic approach, a critique could focus on how 1984 serves current political discourse, encouraging readers to interpret the text based on contemporary issues like surveillance and authoritarianism, rather than assuming Orwell’s original intent as the ultimate interpretative goal. This use of 1984 as a tool for modern reflection aligns with Stout’s emphasis on interpretative purpose over “true” meaning (Stout, p. 6).
Homer’s The Odyssey	Interpretative Pluralism through Multiple Cultural Frames	Instead of seeking a singular “meaning” of heroism or morality in The Odyssey, a Stout-inspired critique would explore how different eras (e.g., Ancient Greek vs. modern perspectives) yield unique interpretations based on cultural values, thus celebrating the text’s multiplicity of meanings. This approach underscores Stout’s call for pluralism in interpretation (Stout, p. 11).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Textualism with Focus on Contextual Significance	A critique of Beloved through Stout’s framework would emphasize the contextual significance of Morrison’s language and narrative structure in depicting African American history and trauma, without fixating on an essential meaning. This allows the novel to resonate with readers through its textual power and historical contexts, reflecting Stout’s textualist and context-centered approach (Stout, p. 9).

Criticism Against “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout

• Reduction of Meaning to Pragmatic Function
  Critics argue that Stout’s pragmatic approach oversimplifies interpretation by reducing it to the interpreter’s immediate goals or interests, potentially ignoring deeper, inherent aspects of a text that contribute to its significance and impact over time.
• Dismissal of Unified Interpretative Framework
  Stout’s critique of universal interpretative methods may be seen as overly relativistic, implying that any interpretation is valid as long as it serves a specific interest. This can weaken the foundation for establishing consistent or coherent literary standards within literary studies.
• Risk of Overemphasis on Authorial Intent
  Although Stout promotes both authorial intention and contextual significance, some critics argue that his approach still risks overemphasizing authorial intent, which modern literary theory often critiques as limiting to the scope and multiplicity of textual interpretations.
• Ambiguity in Eliminating “Meaning” from Hermeneutics
  Stout’s recommendation to eliminate the concept of “meaning” from hermeneutics may appear radical and impractical, as it seems to overlook how the search for meaning inherently drives many interpretative traditions. This elimination could obscure the philosophical depth that traditional hermeneutics has cultivated around the concept of meaning.
• Potential Loss of Depth in Interpretative Engagement
  By prioritizing practical interpretation aligned with specific interests, Stout’s framework may inadvertently promote a more superficial reading that lacks the depth that traditional hermeneutics and theories of meaning aim to achieve, particularly in complex literary texts that invite multi-layered analysis.

Representative Quotations from “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“My aim, instead, will be to undermine the widespread assumption that this question… deserves an answer.” (Stout, p. 1)	Stout begins by challenging the assumption that texts have a single “meaning.” He suggests that this focus might be misplaced, opening the door for alternative interpretative approaches.
“Explication, as Quine puts it, is elimination.” (Stout, p. 2)	Stout uses Quine’s idea to propose that complex or ambiguous terms like “meaning” can sometimes be eliminated in favor of clearer language, aiming to reduce theoretical confusion in interpretation.
“A question of the form, ‘What is the meaning of x?’ retains all the ambiguity of its central term…” (Stout, p. 3)	Here, Stout critiques the inherent ambiguity in asking for “meaning,” pointing out that the term is often vague and obscures more specific interpretative questions.
“There is no point in denying that recent discussions of meaning are confused as well as confusing…” (Stout, p. 1)	Stout acknowledges the pervasive confusion in literary theory around “meaning,” suggesting that rephrasing the question could lead to clearer and more useful discussions.
“The notion of intention may itself require explication before we have a precise specification of topic.” (Stout, p. 3)	Stout notes that even concepts like “authorial intention” require further definition, emphasizing the complexity and layers within interpretative work.
“Theories of meaning—whether they focus on words, sentences, or texts—typically do just that.” (Stout, p. 4)	Here, he critiques traditional theories that attempt to reduce complex interpretative questions into single explanations, which he argues oversimplifies the multiplicity of meanings texts can hold.
“We want to serve our interests and purposes, not reduce them.” (Stout, p. 4)	Stout promotes a pragmatic approach to interpretation, focusing on how interpretations serve the interpreter’s goals rather than reducing the analysis to a single “correct” meaning.
“The more you and I seem to differ on some topic, the less reason we have for thinking that we are discussing the same topic after all.” (Stout, p. 5)	Stout identifies much of the conflict in literary theory as verbal disagreement, suggesting that eliminating vague terms like “meaning” could reveal areas of true agreement.
“Good commentary is whatever serves our interests and purposes.” (Stout, p. 6)	By asserting this, Stout emphasizes that interpretation should align with the reader’s or scholar’s specific purposes, marking a shift from traditional objectivist approaches to more pragmatic interpretations.
“The heyday of meanings is past.” (Stout, p. 8)	Stout concludes that the focus on inherent textual meanings, dominant in the past, has shifted toward approaches valuing context, purpose, and multiplicity, reflecting broader philosophical trends in hermeneutics and literary theory.

Suggested Readings: “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” by Jeffrey Stout

1. Stout, Jeffrey. “What Is the Meaning of a Text?” New Literary History, vol. 14, no. 1, 1982, pp. 1–12. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468954. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
2. Stout, Jeffrey. “THE RELATIVITY OF INTERPRETATION.” The Monist, vol. 69, no. 1, 1986, pp. 103–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27902955. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
3. Stout, Jeffrey. “Comments on Six Responses to ‘Democracy and Tradition.'” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 33, no. 4, 2005, pp. 709–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017995. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
4. Mann, Jill. “The Inescapability of Form.” Readings in Medieval Textuality: Essays in Honour of A.C. Spearing, edited by Cristina Maria Cervone and D. Vance Smith, NED-New edition, Boydell & Brewer, 2016, pp. 119–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1d3925n.14. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.