Approximating Distance and Distanciation in Hermeneutics
(A reflection on a reading of a few essays in Paul Ricoeur’s “Interpretation Theory” and “From Text to Action”, 2004)
by Michael Ian Lomongo
When I was still in college, I wrote an essay on the saying, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” I argued that what bred contempt, if ever, wasn’t so much the familiarity (or intimacy) itself (which logically, should breed more love and regard for the familiar), as the lack or absence of respect for the inexhaustible mystery of persons and things… The attitude of having figured out someone/thing so thoroughly that there is no more room for discovery and wonderment…
That’s what breeds contempt. Not familiarity. Not intimacy per se. Well, I was younger then and didn’t see the wisdom expressed in the prejudices of old sayings. I thought (and rightly) that the saying meant the need and value of keeping some distance in a relationship. But my mind couldn’t fathom how a relationship growing in intimacy/familiarity would require distance. How can intimacy be nurtured through distance? Distance… the opposite of proximity/intimacy… distance… keeping one’s cool, the lack/absence of warmth/passion… distance… coldness, indifference, apathy… How can something clearly negative bring about something positive? Sure, one kept one’s distance (the farther, the better) from strangers and enemies, but from familiars and friends (intimates)?