"THE COAT IS RED" II: Community 'Determined' Meaning

I’d like to begin by looking forward for a moment. As a biblical scholar, I am looking for meaning in the Bible. But especially as a scholar, I am responsible for looking at the ways in which humans find and make meaning—it is often a combination of finding and making. This series of blogs is not an attempt to show how to find meaning in the Bible; instead, it is an attempt to investigate the process in which communities of human agents “determine” meaning in the Bible. If everyone were to conclude the same meaning from the same passage, then this would not be an issue. But as history has shown, this is not the case. Rather than accuse a group or groups of being biased, I find that it is more the case that everyone brings their own biases to the text. I will show this, continuing to use our statement, “The coat is red.” (TCIR)


In the previous post, I showed how the initial context of TCIR determined its meaning for its original author and, most likely in this case, for its original audience. But now let us assume that the initial context of TCIR is lost, in whole or in part, to a present audience. My example will be short and simple, placed in a vacuum where other factors that play upon interpreters are absent. Let us take three professors: the Socialist, the Scientist, and the Artist. They are asked to determine the meaning of a certain piece of manuscript for their University. My aim is to show how the students of the University come to understand TCIR.


Unfortunately for our professors, the manuscript has been burned and all that remains is one sentence:


“Even though the people claim, ‘The coat is red,’ we must hold firm to that which we know and honor our principles with integrity.”


Our professors have managed to date the burned piece to the 1960’s, but beyond that there is no conclusive evidence to determine the intitial context of the TCIR event.


First, the Socialist, as he researches other occurences of TCIR around the same approximate time, he discovers a few examples of TCIR in an initiation phrase for a secret communist sect. He presents his evidence to the University, and claims that this is a manuscript from a person in power, local or national, who was attempting to suppress the communist sect. One may think that the Socialist is guided simply by his own socialist agenda when he makes such a conclusion, but it is more than that. As he is a professor of political science, this was the main research that was available to him, and there was little chance that he could have made any other discovery.


Next, the Scientist shakes her head at the Socialist, because she feels that the Socialist’s conclusion was too narrow in his research, too localized to one specific region. The Scientist, having researched her data, discovers that in five different regions across the United States in the 1960’s that a species of beavers experienced a change in their coat fur from brown to auburn. In her presentation to the University, she concludes that a group in power was suppressing an environmentalist group who were trying to stem the growth of a certain chemical industry. Note: both the environmentalist group and the communist sect were presented as victims. Also, like the Socialist, the Scientist is guided both by her political interests and her limitations in research.


Finally, the Artist shakes her head. After having completed her research, she concludes that there is nothing in the manuscript piece that can be associated with a political group. The initial TCIR event could point to something as benign as a group of art historians debating the original hue of a certain paint. In her presentation she says,


“The popular opinion could have been that the paint was red, but the art historians knew that the color was either different or more complicated than simple red. My bottom line is this: there’s simply not enough evidence to determine the original intent of TCIR.”


While we may think that the Artist has spoken the truth, the Socialist and the Scientist rightly point out that an apolitical stance on a possibly politcal issue, is still a political stance. The Artist was guided both by her disdain for politics and the limitations of her research.


These anecdotes are over-simplified for sure, but my concern in this post is how the students of the university react and determine meaning for the university. One can imagine this possible scenario:


Once all three different conclusions have been presented, the University becomes swept up in the debate, with different student groups siding with different professors. Some side with a professor, because of their own political ideologies, others side with a professor because a good relationship with that professor is good for their future, and yet others still side with a professor because their friends sided with the same professor. A minute percentage of the student population believes in one conclusion because they believe that interpretation to be true (although they are equally guided by their biases and limited information as were our professors).


Soon, the Socialist and Scientist groups dub the Artist group, “Anarchists.” The Socialist and the Artist groups dub the Scientist group, “Lifeless Data-lovers.” Likewise, the Scientist and Artist groups label the Socialist group, “Stalinists.” The purpose of such statements is not to describe a certain group, but to discredit the ethos of their interpretations.


In the same year, a new President of the University is elected. He praises the University’s science department and asserts that they are at the top in technology and rational human thought, “They are everything an Academy should be.” He restructures the University budget increasing funding for the Science department and decreasing it for others. As the Science department grows and other departments shrink, the research and opinions of the Science department gain significant weight in Academic debate. Soon, the majority of students at the University believe TCIR to be a reference to an environmental crisis and the University puts more money into solving environmental problems. Other interpretations of TCIR are marginalized, and some even to the brink of Academic heresy.