SUGERENCIAS

Much of the analysis undertaken throughout this thesis rests upon what has been known as the “linguistic turn” introduced by Skinner. He describes this change of perspective and approach as follows:

I mark a strong distinction between what I take to be two distinguishable dimensions of language. One has conventionally been described as the dimension of meaning, the study of the sense and reference allegedly attaching to words and sentences. The other is best described as the dimension of linguistic action, the study of the range of things that speakers are capable of doing in (and by) their use of words and sentences. Traditional hermeneutics has generally, and often exclusively, concentrated on the first of these dimensions; I concentrate very much on the second (Skinner, 1996: 7-8).

Intentionality is, therefore, doubly relevant in this research because not only is it a defining aspect of the work of the authors here studied, but it is also a key element of the present hermeneutic approach. The FS and the three authors here studied envisage intentionality as playing a crucial role in their own works partly as a result of Heidegger’s influence, and partly as a necessary requirement for the cohesion of their own rationality and their project as a whole. Clarifying the nature in this cohesion in the thought of Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre is of paramount importance for the argument and methodology of this thesis, because of the analysis, reconstruction, and interpretation of these authors’s thought will rest on such cohesion. That is why it must be emphasized that this cohesion is not an external construct or structure imposed a posteriori by the exegete on the groups of texts analysed with the objective of conferring to these texts or even creating a sense of

coherence that was not there in the first place. This is what Skinner refers to as the “mythology of coherence” (see Skinner, 1988b: 38-43; see also Skinner, 2002: 67-72). This, however, does not apply to the thought of Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre because they contain an inherent coherence that is the result of the intentionality which has shaped and guided their thought. Consequently, in their case, cohesion is the result of the awareness and, more importantly, intention of these authors to set out a project of criticism and rationality, which – although in different forms and different shapes – expands throughout their work and even their own lives. It is because of the pivotal role that intentionality plays in the thought of these authors that the link between biography and work is crucial in their analysis. The most immediate consequence of this position which insists on the link between text and author is the interconnectedness of the various levels of their work, such as biography, content, and meaning, to mention just a few, as indicated above. Some of the implications and materializations of such interconnectedness shall now be explored.

None of these three authors can be considered a systematic thinker. Despite their asystematic nature, their work is still part of a project of personal and social development. The key features of their writings must, therefore, be understood as aspects of such projects. In this context, and bearing in mind the relevance of intentionality, the form and style of their work are just as important as the content, for they are clearly concerned with the effect they would have on their readers, as their writings are produced in the hope of encouraging a certain reaction or motivation in the reader.

Intentionality is at the very core of their writings, which at a very basic but powerful level is aimed at two things: first, to communicate – as opposed to lecturing or indoctrinating – and, second, to motivate – to motivate the reader into action, into questioning or simply to engage with the text. An example of the centrality of communication can be found in the topicality and interest of the content – for their contemporary readers –, their frequent use of the newspaper article and the essay to establish a more direct and intimate connection with the reader, as well as a wide number of stylistic features, which will be discussed more at length in the course of the following chapters. The newspaper contribution plays a double role, that of reflecting the writer’s concerns and echoing those of many of the readers, as well as opening their thought to new possibilities and pointing to new horizons (see Gracia, 1996: 20). As for the connotations of essay writing, Bretz’s conclusion regarding the use of the footnote (or lack thereof), which also applies to our key three authors, forcefully grasps these authors’s perspective on communication:

they [Maragall, Unamuno, Ortega and other members of these generations] tend to avoid or minimally use footnotes, even in longer treatises such as Unamuno’s Del sentimiento trágico de la vida. Footnotes and source identification invest the writer with specialized authority that allows him to impart information rather than enter into exchange with the reader or antecedent texts (2001: 201).

It emerges from this how they avoid standing in a position of intellectual authority, deliberately stripping the text of those features which may provide such authority and create a further distance between reader and text. Although it can be argued that the mere fact of being published and being read may already, and perhaps unavoidably, put the author and the text in a position of authority, what remains true is that these authors are clearly concerned with the reception of their work; that they share the desire, the intention, to create a closer relationship between reader, the text, and the writer; and that they develop certain strategies in the attempt to do so.

This is also the case with Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre. Aranguren himself corroborates this in relation to the near-absence of footnotes in Zambrano’s work:

pareciéndose en esto al propio Ortega, nunca abusa de las citas, porque María Zambrano despoja totalmente su texto de citas y nos lo presenta desnudo, exento a nuestros ojos. De modo que la intertextualidad en María Zambrano está viva, pero más bien latente, y en cambio está bastante patente lo que hay de comunicación, no en universo cerrado, sino en universo abierto, como un juego abierto hacia la realidad (1983: 117; see also Laurenzi, 2004: 15).

Thus, they share the same aim of gaining closeness with the reader, at the same time as they emphasize the humanistic rather than scientific nature of their writings. Content, form, and style deliberately work together in a holistic manner, and only reluctantly are they separated here for the purpose of analysis. As we have seen, these features are not coincidental or fruit of an observation a posteriori, but a central premise of their work which consequently shape it. Having provided some evidence of their interconnectedness, which will be explored at length in Chapter Four, the key characteristics of their writings will be discussed below.