A Hermeneutic of Suspicion: What It Is and, Why You Should Be Suspicious if You’re Not Already…

Rita Felski, literary theorist describes this as, “a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths…”

In contrast to this suspicious type of hermeneutics is a “hermeneutics of faith.” It’s defined as “offering meaning…”

Which, this is where the words of Philip K. Dick come in handy:

“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. George Orwell made this clear in his novel 1984. But another way to control the minds of people is to control their perceptions. If you can get them to see the world as you do, they will think as you do. Comprehension follows perception.”

You most likely already see the problem I’m pointing to… by controlling the definitions and very meanings of these words and theological terms you can subversively stigmatize other forms of critique that might be threatening to one’s own institution.

My “Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms” describes this as “A term in liberation theology denoting the need to recognize that certain dominant forms and conclusions in biblical interpretation maybe serving to reinforce forms of dominance, oppression, and agendas of power. Thus one should be suspicious of received interpretations.”

Sure, this is one particular understanding of the term…

(On a side note worth of mentioning: I’m unsure if there should be a separate category isolating liberation theology from… say, just “theology” in general. While it is very helpful to a large extent, it can become unhelpful when it’s stigmatizing or isolating liberation apart from the Gospel.)

Getting back on topic…