The Question of Identity and Culture Through the Works of Stanley Fish
If some hypothetical person were to see a stop sign, chances are he/she would know exactly what that symbol meant. Similarly, every rule, nuance and detail concerning his/her conduct would be understood. Interpreting objects is a continuous and largely subconscious process. It is also absolutely essential. The fact everyone in a related group interprets a wooden object with four legs as a “table” ensures smooth, everyday conduct. Stanley Fish’s article “How to Recognize a Poem When You See One” goes further to claim that whether that hypothetical person is aware of not, their understanding is in virtue of two necessary components-the interpretation itself and the individual’s culture. Fish proposes that everything is the product of interpretation from objects to ideas. He also emphasizes the inextricable role culture has on any individual’s specific interpretations. While it is the individual interpreting, it is not the individual who creates his/her interpretive categories. The individual is instead the product of an “interpretive community” which creates these specific categories for its members to use.
Every individual comes from a group or combination of groups with different sets of categories. When one enters the world and begins seeing/interpreting objects, the interpretations are determined by that group (interpretive community) and not the individual (Fish 313). Fish goes further yet to state that any interpretation, while culturally derived, is also “right.” Regardless of the specific interpretation, the relatively infinite number of possible interpretations reveals there is nothing inherent in any object which lends itself to one definitive interpretation. There is never a right answer. An interpreted object is equally viable as every single possible interpretation. Generally Fish suggests “all objects are made and not foundâÂ?¦[and] the means by which they are made are social and conventionalâÂ?¦the ‘you’ who does the interpretive workâÂ?¦is a communal youâÂ?¦”(Fish 310-11). Fish’s argument seems to have validity when applied to concrete objects-those things which are tangible and observable.
However, when the argument is generalized to everything, both concrete and abstract (as Fish himself proposes), it deteriorates. One especially detects problems when applied to the abstract concept of moral judgments. Using the interpretive object-or “text”-of the Confederate flag, this differentiation between the abstract and concrete is observable. This will be shown through the readings of several differing interpretive communities.
The Confederate flag carries vastly different connotations today than during the American Civil War. These connotations varied not only according to the time period but also depending on who was interpreting the text. The differing interpretive communities of the North and the South interpreted the flag in diametrically different ways. The present day interpretive community of the North may interpret the Confederate flag as a reminder of victory, a symbol of the past South, a historical document of sorts, or simply fabric, dye and stitching. The present day interpretive community of the South however may interpret that same flag as the visual representation of the South (similar to the northern community), a reminder of defeat, perhaps an object of nostalgia, or it may simply conjure specific battles, generals or events in the Civil War. These opposing connotations are explained through Fish’s argument. As stated, he claims that a text is interpreted due solely to an individual’s community. Therefore, the Confederate flag holds no particular meaning independent of an interpreter. It is not really anything. It is equally true that it is both a symbol of victory and defeat depending only on the interpreter. Therefore the difference in interpretation can be attributed to the differing interpretive communities from which individuals are products. The difference in interpretations also confirms one of Fish’s main points. The mere fact people possess different interpretations of the same text reveals there is nothing inherent within that particular text which would elicit one specific and “right” interpretation. It is seen that Fish’s argument provides a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. It is also seen that the listed connotations for the Confederate flag are at the concrete level. They are the purely physical and terrestrial associations of the text, and at this level they work within the context of Fish’s argument.
Fish’s article utilizes purely concrete examples to explain his theory. He uses the poem as three possible items-poem, assignment or list. He also uses a student’s raised hand. While each item is different, they are all ultimately concrete. However, he then takes the liberty to generalize his theory to all realms of objects, which includes the abstract. When performing an in-class activity related to Fish, it was made clear this generalization was premature. Given three separate texts, each person was asked to write the associations and the significance of each text. The group in which I took part had the male and female bathroom sign, the Coca-Cola logo and the American flag. After we convened and discussed our answers, it was evident that our associations and connotations were almost identical. Through the lens of Fish this could be adequately explained. Everyone in the group was from a relatively similar interpretive community, and the connotations we derived were therefore comparable. No one saw any of the three texts as wildly different from anyone else in the group. The associations of each text were at the concrete level, and it was possible to explain the findings through Fish. However, when we began discussing the relative significance of these texts the answers became progressively different. Determining and articulating the significance of an item is a type of value judgment, and it no longer is as concrete as the simple associations. Once the abstract was introduced Fish’s argument broke down. If we were from such similar interpretive communities as would be suggested by our first set of answers, then why would our answers be so different for a separate set of questions? This exercise illustrates there is a very important distinction to be made between the concrete and the abstract which is ultimately denied in Fish’s article. There appears to be congruity with Fish’s argument and the concrete, but something is amiss once the abstract is involved.
Once again using the Confederate flag, this abstract/concrete differentiation can be highlighted further. The present day interpretive communities of the North and South see the Confederate flag and are bound to pass some sort of moral judgment. Slavery is an inevitable connotation, and personal moral feelings toward that institution are equally as inevitable to follow. These moral judgments and feelings transcend the realm of concrete into the abstract, which is not accurately explained through Fish. In the present day the predominant feeling toward slavery is that it was a shameful period. In the simplest terms, it was “wrong.” (This is disregarding the interpretive communities in the minority which see no moral failing in slavery.) But if one looks at the interpretive communities of the past, the moral judgments become much more polarized and much more interesting to examine. At least in theory, the past interpretive community of the North believed slavery to be morally wrong. The past interpretive community of the South interpreted that same institution as morally acceptable. (This is of course generalizing the views of each side in too simplistic of terms. To directly observe individuals, all the influences and experiences of that person would need to be taken into account. Consequently they may no longer fit neatly into either of these two polar categories.) If one were to apply Fish’s theory to these types of abstract moral interpretations, there is an essential failing in the argument.
According to Fish, the members of the North see slavery as wrong in virtue of their community, and any interpretations they make about the institution’s morality are correct. Similarly, the members of the South see slavery as acceptable in virtue of their community. Therefore, any interpretations of moral judgments they make are also correct. Fish’s theory applies the rules of the concrete to the abstract, so it would only be fair to say within Fish’s argument there is nothing inherent about slavery which makes it either right or wrong. It is completely determined by the interpreter and his/her community. This attitude toward slavery reveals a disconnect between Fish’s theory and the abstract.
As was explored with the aforementioned in-class activity, the abstract is not fully captured by Fish’s argument. If the theory is applied to moral situations, the result is moral relativism. This philosophical doctrine is the idea that no one set of moral values or judgments are correct. Within relativism, it is not morally acceptable to apply one set of standards to a different group of people who do not operate under those same standards. Keeping with the issue of slavery, Fish takes the moral relativist’s standpoint and says that everyone’s moral judgments are equally correct. He sees the two opposing statements “slavery is wrong” and “slavery is right” as correct so long as the individual asserting either claim is from an interpretive community which shaped that opinion. The opposition to moral relativism is adhering to strictly universal moral truths. These are principles which are true regardless of human intervention, and will stay true whether humans believe them or not. Under these strictly universal moral truths, it is permissible to say that everyone has the right to freedom from forced enslavement and violating that right is “wrong.” It would also be permissible to say that anyone that interprets slavery as an acceptable institution is also wrong regardless of that individual’s interpretive community.
The ramifications of Fish’s argument are many, including predominantly the status of the individual. One of Fish’s main points throughout his theory was that the individual is not possible, because he/she will always be an inextricable product of a community (Fish 311). This is assuming however that ideas are subject to Fish’s theory. Yet, it has been illustrated there is need for pause when applying Fish’s argument to something so abstract as an idea. While an individual may be a cultural product to some degree, it does not follow they are destined to accept and conform to all cultural conventions, especially those abstract entities such as thoughts and morals. Furthermore it is often these abstract concepts which largely define the “individual.” It is one’s thoughts, feelings and values which make the unique being. With the concrete/abstract segregation established, there seems to be room for the true individual within and even despite society.
Works Cited
1. Fish, Stanley. “How to Recognize a Poem When You See One.” Reading Context. Dickson Musslewhite, Julie McBurney. : Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. 305-314.
