What is the Meaning of a Text?

At a recent meeting of the U District Philosophy Cafe we discussed various theories of how a person might determine the meaning of a religious text. In my opinion, theories of textual interpretation fall along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum you've got formalists who claim meaning is contained within the text itself. This is a static meaning that is independent of the context within which the text was either written or read. Formalist meaning is 'embedded' in the text and it is the reader's job to 'extract' it as objectively as possible. At the other end of the spectrum you have subjectivists who claim meaning is defined exclusively by how a reader reacts to the text. This reaction is determined by the person's unique cultural, historical and psychological background. To a subjectivist the text itself has no inherent meaning because a new meaning is created every time a person reads it.

I don't agree with the formalist position. I don't think it is ever possible to eliminate a reader's psychological and sociohistorical background from the reading process. If I'm afraid of wolves, my reading of Little Red Riding Hood is going to be very different from someone who was raised by wolves. Our readings will be different no matter how much psychological therapy or academic training I go through. In fact, if I go through wolf recovery therapy that is going to have its own unique affect on how I read the text. I also don't buy the idea that we can create an objective method (such as New Criticism) that can lead us past our personal biases to an objective reading. There is no such thing as the view from nowhere.

That said, I don't fully agree with the subjectivists either. Meaning doesn't lie solely in the realm of the reader's private psychology. If that were the case, it would be impossible for a reader to discuss the meaning of a text with someone else. The closest we could ever get to a public conversation about textual meaning would be a comparison of the social, historical and psychological backgrounds that led to our individual reactions. I think discussing the meaning of a text serves a unique and useful social purpose beyond just comparing our psychologies.  For me, meaning is neither a static essence embedded in the text nor the simple sum of emotions experienced by a reader at a given moment in time. Rather it is a complex, distributed, dynamically changing assembly that includes many interrelated components such as the intent of the author, the historical background from which the text arose, the psychology of the reader and even physical characteristics of the text itself such as font and paragraph structure. Some of these factors are static but others such as the sociohistoric background of the reader are dynamic. Interpreting a text is the process of assembling these components into a coherent and useful whole. 

I thought about discontinuing this blog and starting a new one because I had changed e-mail accounts and didn't know how to re-configure blogger to use the new one. Fortunately I found a post describing how to do that so this is now my active blog again. Sorry for any confusion.

I've discontinued this blog and started a new one here. It's been a while since I've posted anything but will remedy that now.

Duane Harkness

Congressman Reichert gets it right on H.R. 910, Amendment 6

I just sent the following e-mail to my congressman, Dave Reichert:

I would like to commend Congressman Reichert for voting "Aye" on H.R. 910, Amendment No. 6 which states "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the EPA that climate change is occuring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." The Congressman was the only member of his party to do so, which to me is a sign of both courage and leadership. 

Although (incredibly) the amendment was voted down, whenever one of our elected officials ignores party pressure and instead pays attention to established science rather than ideological malarky, they deserve positive feedback.

Check here to see how your representative voted on the amendment. Whether they did the right thing or the wrong thing, tell them how you feel about the subject. The more feedback they get the better.

Duane Harkness

Short Sighted Assault on the Clean Air Act

On December 7, 2009 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that "current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases" including CO2 "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations". This endangerment determination triggered the regulation of greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This action by the EPA was in response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles contribute to air pollution which could reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health.

On November 11, 2010, as a result of the endangerment determination, the EPA issued guidance material to state and local permitting authorities to aid them in controlling and reducing greenhouse gases in certain key industrial sectors such as electricity generation, industrial boilers, pulp and paper mills, cement, iron and steel, refineries and nitric acid plants. Starting January 2, 2011 the largest emitters of greenhouse gases were required to show regulators how they plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

On February 3, 2011 House Energy and Commerce Committee chair Fred Upton (R-Michigan), Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and Representative Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky) announced draft legislation called the "Energy Tax Prevention Act" that would prohibit the EPA from exercising its power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The congressmen claim the purpose of this legislation is to stop the EPA "from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax".

Upton, Inhofe and Whitfield do not understand climate science. They ignore the the well established scientific facts of climate change and the obvious economic damage it will cause here in the United States. This legislation hides under the guise of anti-tax rhetoric which will make it popular with the newly formed Tea Party faction of the Republican party, but it will end up having the opposite economic effect. We need to act now to curb our carbon emissions so that even more economically crippling regulation isn't required in the future.

If you live in a Republican represented district as I do, please write your congressman urging him/her not to support this bill. We need to help them get back on a sane track that both acknowledges the scientific facts of climate change as well as the need for an economically pragmatic approach to the issue that doesn't cripple our economy.

Belief in Evolution: Slow but Positive Progress

The most recent Gallup poll on belief in evolution shows a small but positive (+4%) increase in the number of Americans who accept the scientific consensus, agreeing that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life". Currently 54% of Americans share this viewpoint which is good news for those of us who agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous statement that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Unfortunately 40% of Americans still agree with the young earth creationist view that "God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."  This is an astonishingly high number, however it is actually the lowest level of support for young earth creationism in the history of the Gallup poll.

American Belief in Evolution
(Data Source: 2010 Gallup Poll)

So why do so many Americans reject the theory of evolution? Level of education is one factor. The less educated you are the less likely you are to believe in evolution. For example, only 43% of Americans whose education level is high school or less believe in evolution.

Another key factor is a person's religious beliefs. According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the more fundamentalist your religion the less likely you are to accept evolution.

Percentage of Adherents Who Believe in Evolution
(Data Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

So how does America compare with other countries when it comes to belief in evolution? According to a study published in the August 2006 issue of Science, the United States ranks second to last with Turkey being the only country in the survey with a lower acceptance of the scientific consensus.

Ranking of Countries by Belief in Evolution
(Graph Source: Science, August 2006)

The study identified two reasons for America's low ranking: 1) widespread religious fundamentalism and; 2) the ongoing politicization of science. Since the former is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and the latter is outside the control of scientists, educators and pro-science citizens, any strategy that hopes to increase evolutionary literacy in the US needs to take these issues into account.

Evolution is the foundation for modern biology. A thorough understanding of it is an absolute necessity for any person going into biology-based professions such as genetics, agronomy, medicine, etc. To remain competitive in the global economy, and possibly to even just survive the 21st century, we need to do much better than our current 54% acceptance. The Gallup poll shows progress has been slow but positive so we are doing something right, but to make serious gains I think we need some fresh new ideas.

Stop the Hate - Don't Take the Bait

I don't like Rush Limbaugh. He says very stupid things. A recent example is his suggestion that "The White racist leadership of the Democrat Party is trying to ace out [current majority whip Rep. James] Clyburn" who is vying to become minority whip in the newly Republican controlled House. He follows this crass accusation up with the equally inane opinion that Clyburn is just "...worried about not having the perk of a big office, driver, and so forth." He then offers the 'solution' that a new position should be made for Clyburn rather than minority whip.  "Clyburn's new position: Driving Miss Nancy [Pelosi]. He gets to keep the car. He gets to go everywhere she goes, parties and everything else. He's not in the back of the bus. He's in the driver's seat, and she's in the back of the car being chauffeured. Solved problem."

Stupid? Yes. Racist? Yes. Something we should take seriously? No. Rush is just doing his normal 'liberal baiting' routine. Normally I'd let this sort of thing slide because I don't want to give Rush any more attention than he deserves (which is none), however the article that highlighted this particular bit of Rush-nastiness included a number of comments from ostensibly liberal readers that I found equally offensive. They respond to Rush's racist 'humor' with equally intolerant (and decidedly unfunny) jabs - comments on Rush's weight, his struggle with substance abuse, hopes that his marriage falls apart soon, that his life should end in agony, etc.

Of course this all plays into Rush's hand because he has stirred up more left/right hate and he gets the attention and notoriety he's looking for. I'm sure some of the more provocative comments were provided by Rush fans who are helping stir the pot by masquerading as liberals, however I'm very disappointed with any of my fellow true liberals who would sink so low as to play Rush's game with him.

Duane Harkness