interpretation

On Interpretation-A Proposal

There are no hidden meanings. If such things as hidden meanings can be said to exist,
they are hidden by readers' habits and prejudices (by readers' assumptions that what
they read should tell them what they already know), or by readers' timidity and
passivity (by their unwillingness to take the responsibility to speak their minds and
say what they notice). David Bartholomae

To "interpret" something means that we make sense of something. The
second we ask "What does it mean?" or the moment we try to "understand"
something we experience, we are in the realm of interpretation. We order it, group it,
and ultimately try to relate it to what we already know in an effort to integrate it
(texts that refuse to be integrated within our frame of reference remain "too difficult"
or "not understandable"). We don't "discover" meaning as much as we "construct"
meaning, for the reader is the one who makes the connections. On the other hand,
the author provides a kind of "field" or parameters that the reader works with, so the
text can't just signify "anything." Compare a story to the night sky. The configuration
of stars is preset, awaiting a reader, but the reader makes the connections to create
meaningful constellations. As Robert Scholes points out, "the major function of
interpretation is to say what a previous text has left unsaid: to unravel its
complications, to make explicit its implications, to raise its concrete and specific
details to a more abstract and general level." In other words, when we read a story
about two kids in a forest who meet a lady who wants to eat them, we make sense
of that story by interpreting it. We say it is a story about poverty, justice, greed,
feudal society, hope and victory, childhood anxieties, or abuse, etc.

Remember that interpretation is not a matter of just thinking hard or thinking
well. It's not really a matter of "digging deeper" or "dissecting" either. Instead,
interpretation relies on a methodology, lens, perspective, frame of reference,
principles of classification, or interpretive framework, which allow us to see different
aspects of what we are studying. By "methodology" or "lens" I mean the way we
gather materials, what we "count" as evidence (what we see as relevant or
important), and how we talk about what we see. In brief, a method is defined by our
goals and the questions we ask.

Questions which share a similar interest or concern can be grouped and
given a name. School subjects are not only divided up in terms of subject-what we
look at-but also in terms of "relevant" questions. For example, "sex" may be a
common topic in all disciplines, but an historian, scientist, literary critic, psychologist,
mathematician, sociologist, theologian, etc. would not ask the same questions, and as
a result, they would come up with different conclusions. They would also use
different terms to describe what they see. Importantly, the kind of interpretation we
come up with depends on the type of questions we ask. Again, it's helpful to see
these different ways of talking about a subject in terms of different lenses, and each
lens lets us see something that another lens is blind to. To go back to Bartholomae's
assertion, meaning is "hidden" only because the lens we use often makes us blind to a
meaning, for the "meaning" may be absolutely obvious to another reader with another
lens.

Questions which share a set of interests or concerns are often given labels.
i.e. historical, scientific, empirical, etc. but also terms like formalist, Freudian,
Marxist, feminist, Christian, etc. While this class will not insist on one method, we
will tend to use lenses which highlight relations of gender, class, race, and ideology.
What is important for you to keep in mind is that there is not just one approach
which is the best. Please recognize that each approach offers insights and blind
spots; there are gains and limitations to each set of questions and concerns.
Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of "switching lenses." The lens we are most
used to tends to color the one we are attempting to use.

Finally, many will say that we interpret too much or that we "read too much
into" a story, a movie, or TV program, but even that statement is a kind of
interpretation, perhaps a lousy one. Put another way, we are always
interpreting/reading everything around us, even if we say, "Oh, that's just a cartoon.
It doesn't mean anything!" Most of the time we are blind to our own methodology or
way of seeing because it seems so "natural," "commonsensical," or "normal." Just
because we are used to a way of seeing, just because our own perspective seems
normal or natural, does not mean that we are not using a specific kind of "lens." It
just means that we are unwilling to admit it. Thus, when someone says, "You're
reading too much into it," what they are really saying is, "I don't like the lens you're
looking through. Or, I don't like your perspective or vantage point. Or, I don't like
what your lens reveals because it disturbs me or threatens my way of seeing."