HOW TO INTERPRET TEXTS CRETICALLY
1. questions what you read.
2. 2. thinks about what
the author wants you to believe and works to convince you.
3. 3. decides whether the
author's views are worthy of agreement.
Reading is one
of the most commonplace examples of the human mind achieving logically
impossible things. Text is read according to reductionist and holist.
Interpretation is an essential way in
which humans operate. We interpret someone’s words, someone’s actions, texts,
articles, books, movies, the list goes on. Despite what some may say about
interpretation, there is an interesting, philosophical approach on how we
should interpret texts. Interpretation should not be stemming from
perlocutionary intentions, instead it should derive from illocutionary
intentions. I will elaborate on these two concepts later on. Additionally, I
believe if we approached interpretation in an analytical manner rather than
conceptual, it could better serve the functionality of our society.
Now, why would anyone want to apply a
philosophical outlook towards interpretation? Isn’t everything in this world
just our own interpretation of what something ought to be? In today’s society I
believe the way we analyze language and the narrative behind the words we see
and hear are crucial for a deliberative democracy to thrive. The current
climate of our political culture rests upon our willingness to be deliberative
with someone we may disagree with. Having deliberation apart of the culture is
a key component to restrain civilization from breaking out into anarchy and the
way we can advance deliberation is through interpretation.
The first important aspect of interpreting
texts is understanding the author’s original motives and intent. When we
interpret readings we tend to apply our own circumstances to the author’s,
disregarding significant elements that may have inclined them to write this
piece in the first place. In order to understand what is being expressed we
have to place ourselves in the author’s conditions at the time the piece was
being written. We must think, why was this being written and for whom?
This is where perlocutionary and
illocutionary intentions come into factor. A writer’s perlocutionary intentions
do not need to be studied by the readers because if the meaning of the text was
to convey sadness, the meaning should not need to be uncovered by the audience,
it should already be embedded in the text. On the other hand a writer’s
illocutionary intentions does require the reader to show attention to the
author’s intentions and motives. Why? Well, an illocutionary intention is the
notion that people produce well-formed utterances for a purpose. For instance,
the need to communicate something to someone or to provide facts. To interpret
a text we want to know the author’s intent, not how the author provoked a
response out of us. Readers should pay attention to the motives and intentions
of the author in order to deduce a valid interpretation of the text and ensure
the language was also accounted for.
To know what a writer meant is to know
what their primary intentions were, which is a factor into being deliberative.
How are we to interact with people and progress as a society if we cannot hear
one another? If we manipulate the language we hear to fit our own agenda, our
own purpose and to validate a response, what good will it do for the further
advancement of civilization? Clearly then, we cannot properly interpret words
and language if we are applying our own perceptions.
If I haven’t lost you yet I want to
explain the overarching idea of interpretation and its effects on society. I
stated that when we interpret texts we cannot place our own concepts, our own
language and our own values onto the author’s. Why? It’s not interpreting at
that point, it’s just reading what we want to believe is being conveyed, which
is very problematic for society. It limits any form of deliberation, because
instead of understanding the motives of another person or the author, we are
applying our own meaning to their words, which might be a meaning they weren’t
even trying to recount. We are putting our own opinion and our own initial
response above the original message.
Over the course of my life I have
witnessed how historians, political scientists, world leaders and average
people superficially analyze texts, words, concepts and actions. People
construe the intended meaning and use their own interpretation as proof of
truth, which can then be upheld within a society. It is clear that in order for
a society to progress in a civil fashion, we must be able to properly deduce
what texts mean but not just texts, language. Language is the key to life. It
is not the texts themselves that have meaning but the words derived in them. It
should be made known that concepts within texts are intertwined with rhetoric
and are used to shape societal normatives. This in fact, is how we perceive
history and try to make sense of the world. Our world is shaped by language and
the way we interpret that language, shapes our world. This is why proper and
critical interpretation is such a vital skill for people to acquire. We must
interpret texts with a purpose and through an investigative lens. Instead of
applying our own meanings and concepts to the language we read, we should be
trying to understand the author’s motives and interpreting the language as it
once was, not what it is now.
How exactly does interpretation play into
the functionality of our society you might ask. Well, the concepts embedded in
language change and those concepts are tools which aid how we shape the world.
Interpreting a text itself does not carry the utmost importance, it is instead
the outcome in how we utilize the concepts in said text. We see this happen in
United States Supreme Court rulings. The Justices are interpreting what the
Constitution means. Some Justices have applied their own meaning to the
language and concepts embedded in the Constitution, therefore changing an
institution or social normative in our society. Other Justices critically
adhere to the language in the constitution and analyze what the author’s
original intent was, not their response to the text or their own perception but
what the founders were exactly trying to convey at the time. This is not only
done on a Supreme Court level, it is done within our government branches, our
institutions and in our own neighborhoods. People may change concepts and words
within a text for their own enlightenment or because they really believe this
is how the text should be interpreted. Either way, it can create a social
change if an influential person or group are the one’s interpreting.
Our language and vocabulary are altered
concepts and this evolution, I believe, is caused by rises and falls in a
society. Language is what gives life meaning and social perceptions and beliefs
are shaped by the very words we convey to various concepts. This is important
to how we interpret texts because it is not just words on paper or a speech
being recorded that is historically important, it is socially important in the
way our civilizations operate. Rhetoric and concepts are used to make us
believe in the validity of a certain concept. This validity then shapes
behavior and models the morals and judgements within a society. The way we
interpret text shapes our society.
So, how should we interpret texts? You now
have read a whole philosophical deliberation about what interpretation means
but you are probably wondering, how then, do I interpret what I read, hear and
see? Well, you should interpret texts with a skeptical lens and not just read a
piece to read it but read it to understand what the author was trying to
convey. Of course, this mainly applies to historical and political readings but
it can apply to anywhere in our lives. In today’s society I have witnessed many
are quick to believe whatever pops up on our screen without giving a thorough
investigation into the claim. That this person’s interpretation is greater than
that person’s. We need to keep in mind, in order for a deliberative democracy
to work, we must analyze language and the narrative behind the words we see and
hear in a methodical fashion. If we are quick to give our own narrative, our
own meaning, our own perception, how then will we ever fully progress if we
cannot understand what was being said or what is being said. We must listen and
dissect instead of being so quick to respond. The way we interpret can evolve
the way our society functions.