Fish argues that “readers make meanings…and meanings make readers [because of socially constructed communities]” I am willing to agree that part of how we interpret a text emerges from the environment and social forces that continually change and evolve around and through us. If we are all part of various interpretive communities, it stands to reason large numbers can agree to certain interpretations of a text like James Joyce’s short stories tend to reflect the socio-political situation in
However, no two people are part of exactly the same communities to the same involvement and extent. Because of this difference, there will always be part of us that is original and unlike any others. Fish is partially mistaken when he says “the self…is a social construct.” We are all social constructs to a certain extent but not completely. I refuse to believe that the only reason humans think the way they do is because of society’s standards—that seems like conceding too much control to something far larger and more capricious than the individual.
Opinions? Arguments?
Emily Franzen
3 comments:
I think we can't be afraid to recognize the profound influence of society on us. From our language to our religion (to some extent, at least), we are social products. What I think is more important that fighting against this inevitable truth is recognizing the social impact and observing its influences in ourselves as well as our literature. However, I do not think Fish is conceding absolute power to society. That is why he gives the first premise "readers make meanings"; we are the ones who create the text, thus "interpreters do not decode poems, they make them." And although he discusses the communal self and lack of individual interpretation, I believe he is talking wide scale individuality. As though we are individuals inside of a society that has certain sets of rules (like raising hands) and sybolism (the cross) that are adhered to and understood when studying poetry. This lead then, I think, to using these tools society gives us in order to further understand the context for a literary work. We should be looking at the layers of society (United State to Deep South to Mississippi to black community for instance) in order to have a thourough reading for as specific context as we can discern.
Have I gone off topic? It's possible.
Julie makes a good point. Society has a very large impact on the way we think, whether or not we admit it. This notion seems to bother Emily, but I don't see it as that big of a problem. I don't think Fish is saying that we are all the same as a result of being social constructs, he just fails to take into account that people may be part of more than one socially constructed community.
I am intrigued by Emily's statement "I refuse to believe that the only reason humans think the way they do is because of society’s standards." If you disagree with this, then what else do you think plays a part in human thinking? What shapes thought, if not the environment around you? I guess biological factors can shape your personality and thinking style to a certain extent, but even biology can be largely influenced by outside factors. I just don't see any other way for one's self to form, except as a result of the societal influences.
I see where you were coming from, Emily, but I think Fish is correct if he is understood to be more complex than he actually states. You seem particularly taken-aback by his statement that "the self...is a social construct."
In what way is this untrue? We have been talking about ideas, our mental processes of interpretation and forming meaning; but what if we changed gears and thought about this in a way that, typically, seems easier to discuss: biology.
We are all unique biological organisms. Except for twins, but even they develop their own biological uniqueness as they age, are colonized by different bacteria, accidentally slice a fingertip chopping onion, get appendicitis, and so on. We are, then, as physically unique as you would argue we are mentally unique: no two of us are precisely the same, composed of precisely the same chemicals, organs, hairs, parasites, and so on.
We are, though, all biological beings, members of the same species. While we are unarguable unique specimens, we also share *everything*: genes are, by definition, communal property.
Are our ideas, our cultures, etc., very different? We may not all share every aspect (some of us can't roll our tongues, just as some of us refuse to believe that The Dead is about telephones), but everything we *do* have came from someone--or someones--else.
Emily refuses to believe that "the only reason humans think the way they do is because of society's standards." I would argue--don't get mad, friend--that you refuse this *because* society has taught you about the "value of the individual." I think the power of individuals, if there is any, is in our ability to commit actions, to pass on those ideas, values, and other cultural implements that inform us.
Post a Comment