"I love you; you are the only one for me."

A good interpreter is like a copy machine: the better the copy machine the better the replication of information. Put a document on the copier and one expects the same document to come out. But everyone knows that if you make a copy of a copy, then the quality is diminished—the information is not replicated exactly the same as the original. Is this because the copier didn’t work well the second time. No. The copier didn’t make a %100 exact replica the first time, but the differences were too small to notice the first time around. The second time, however, highlighted the small, incremental deviants of the copy process. The same problem exists in the old game of “telephone,” where one person passes a “phrase” to another by whispering in their ear, until the whole “phrase” has been passed through one’s group. The final phrase is almost always different than the original phrase. So it is with interpreting individuals and their determination of meaning.

In the previous two posts, we have seen: 1) Meaning is partially determined by the original event (context) of the text; and 2) A communal interpretation is complex and partially determined through biases, limitations, and power structures. However, my characterizations were over-simplified. We have missed a step. We have gone from initial event to a communal interpretation without considering the mediating interpreter—the professors in the last post. In this post, I will show that a great burden is on interpreting individuals.

The interpretive process for individuals can be divided into three steps: 1) Assimilation, 2) Processing, and 3) Production (or Re-production) of information. First, the individual gathers the information (Assimilation), information that may or may not have been already interpreted and categorized. Second, the individual thinks the information through (thoroughly or not) and may or may not organize the information into new categories. Finally, if steps one and two are accomplished (the information is “understood”) the individual produces the terminal interpretation through a mental note, writing, or a voiced proclamation to other individuals.

Imagine four husbands (A-D) all say to their wives, “I love you; you’re the only one for me.” The wives happen to all be friends with each other, who meet weekly for coffee. Husband A is the model husband—he participates fully with household work (even doing more than his share), takes his wife out for special dinners, and teaches his kids to respect their mother. When he says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” he ‘means’ it. Wife A is warmed and comforted by this proclamation and is confident that it is true. She says so at her weekly coffee meeting.

Husband B models all of the same actions that Husband A had, but for whatever reason is unsure of his love for his wife. He shows it in small ways, like passing up on a hug or wanting to end conversations quickly so he can spend more time doing something else. Wife B is aware of this and for whatever reason is content with it. When Husband B says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” she is satisfied, thinking “even though it’s not perfect, it won’t get any better.” She tells her friends of her husband’s great love for her.

Husband C has recently cheated on his wife, twice. He does not keep up with his side of the household work, but works long hours outside of the home. But after his last escapades with other women, he has become more thankful and appreciative of the home his wife makes for him. When he says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” he also ‘means’ it. Wife C, not knowing of the affairs, is happy to sacrifice herself at home for her hard-working husband. She recognizes the appreciation and gratitude in his declaration, and she says so to her friends at coffee.

Finally, Husband D has been cheating on his wife for three years with another woman. He is in love with the other woman and wishes to live with her, but can’t find a way to make it happen. He too does not keep up with the housework, nor does he do anything special for his wife. When he says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” he is just trying to maintain stability. Wife D knows this (but she does not know about the affair), but she also thinks “it’s not perfect, but it’s pretty normal, I guess.” She tells her friends also that her husband loves her very much, even though she slightly envies the other three.

How is it that Wives A-D come from separate, complex situations, but eventually all have the production of “interpretations” of their husbands declarations? They did not have enough information in the assimilating process (know their husbands deep thoughts, nor their affairs) and their desire for their husbands words to be true strongly influenced the processing of the assimilated process. One may say, “that’s just women,” but I say, “no, that’s humans.” That’s how all individual interpreters act in the interpretive process. One hopes to assimilate as much true information as possible, and one tries not to impose one’s desires on the “truth” of that information, but like the copier, the production of information is rarely (dare I say never) an exact replication of the “original” information. Furthermore, the final production of the interpretation is often built into its own rhetorical context, as was the case with Wife D. Even though she did not fully believe her husband’s proclamation, her final production was still the same as the others. Her desire to speak the truth into being and not to be embarrassed in front of her friends weighed in on her final production of her interpretation.