In his influential collection The Conflict of Interpretations (1969), Paul Ricoeur explores the diversity—and often the tension—of interpretive approaches in philosophy, theology, psychoanalysis, and the human sciences. For Ricoeur, hermeneutics is not a matter of reaching one single, final truth about texts and symbols. Instead, it is a field of conflicting interpretations, where different methods compete, challenge, and enrich one another. This plurality is not a weakness but a sign of the depth of meaning itself.
The Field of Hermeneutics
Ricoeur situates hermeneutics as the theory of interpretation, extending beyond biblical exegesis to include philosophy, literature, psychoanalysis, and culture. The conflict of interpretations emerges because language and symbols carry a surplus of meaning: they cannot be reduced to a single reading. Interpretive traditions—existential, structuralist, psychoanalytic, theological—therefore produce divergent but legitimate insights.
The Hermeneutics of Faith vs. the Hermeneutics of Suspicion
One of Ricoeur’s key distinctions in the conflict of interpretations is between:
-
Hermeneutics of Faith: Approaches that seek to restore meaning, trust texts, and open themselves to the world projected by them (e.g., phenomenology, theology).
-
Hermeneutics of Suspicion: Approaches that demystify, critique, and expose hidden forces behind texts (e.g., Marx, Freud, Nietzsche).
Rather than choosing between them, Ricoeur insists both are necessary. Hermeneutics must oscillate between suspicion and faith—between critique and restoration.
Symbols and the Multiplicity of Meaning
For Ricoeur, symbols—whether religious, poetic, or cultural—are at the heart of the conflict of interpretations. A symbol, by definition, “gives rise to thought,” but it does so in multiple directions. For example, a biblical parable can be read theologically, existentially, or psychoanalytically, with each interpretation revealing new layers of meaning. The conflict is inevitable because symbols resist closure; they demand ongoing reinterpretation.
Texts as Sites of Conflict
Texts are autonomous, detached from their authors and original contexts. This autonomy allows for multiple readings—historical, structural, critical, or existential. Each interpretive method highlights different dimensions: historical criticism reveals context, psychoanalysis uncovers unconscious motives, phenomenology discloses lived experience. The result is a plurality of legitimate perspectives that cannot be reduced to one.
Toward a Hermeneutical Arc
Ricoeur does not see the conflict of interpretations as a deadlock but as a hermeneutical arc—a dialectical process that deepens understanding. Through confrontation, interpretive methods refine one another. Suspicion guards against naïveté, while faith protects against cynicism. Together, they sustain a dynamic hermeneutics that is both critical and receptive.
Implications for Philosophy and Theology
The conflict of interpretations has far-reaching consequences:
-
For philosophy: It shows that meaning is inexhaustible, resisting the temptation of absolute systems.
-
For theology: It offers a way of reading scripture that takes criticism seriously while still allowing faith to find renewal (see Biblical Hermeneutics).
-
For the human sciences: It legitimizes methodological plurality—structuralism, phenomenology, psychoanalysis—each as partial but valuable perspectives.
Conflict as Fertility
For Ricoeur, the conflict of interpretations is not a crisis but a condition of thought. Meaning is abundant, layered, and never exhausted. The task of hermeneutics is not to eliminate conflict but to dwell within it, navigating between suspicion and faith, critique and restoration, plurality and unity.
In this way, Ricoeur’s vision turns conflict into fertility—the ongoing wellspring of philosophical, ethical, and spiritual reflection.
Other Books by Ricoeur:
