Interpretative evolution: methodology and ideology (Sontag, 7)
Interpretation is a critical part of human development and moral fabric. How we interpret texts, events and others formulates our perspective on the world. How much do we imply our own biases. How often are we misguided by arrogance and stubbornness.
Interpretation is based on lived experience. There is rarely a clean slate. Engaging situations with preconceived biases. Perception is skewed by a priori knowledge. While children may be innocent of this prejudice their parental education is embedded in their psyche. Corralled by consistent jargon the way they see the world is blurred by their own knowledge. Continuing traditions of one’s parents is itself a mimicking technique that has yet to detach from the parental mustered pride. Reality is a collage of perpetuated messaging. Tingling the subconscious to deduce truths without personally experiencing them. Spending so much time hearing without actually doing. A byproduct of our birth the child’s fate is sealed. He is but a cultivation of his environment. His innocence is muddied by unknown phenomena. Invading phenomena infesting his mind unaware of their presence. A servant to subliminal messaging.
The child has little memory of his parents fierce words. The big no-nos in their rule book. It wasn’t specified but he felt the whooping he received. He felt the harsh breath voice raised in his ears. A roaring sound aching his head. The memory was recorded even if the image cannot be recalled. His mind highlighted instances of wrathful intent. Distinguishing between normal and radical behaviour. When did his parents grow extra angry. What set them off. Momentarily he can remember and avoid but in time he will forget. Yet the message beats into him. Feeling sorry for angering his parents he confesses He was wrong and he will do better. Whether he meant it or not he has accepted their frame. Subconsciously he has surrendered. He is at the behest of their way. He is at the mercy of his parental guidance. He sees the world as they guide him. Staying within order. Their words so impactful. In devoted love he follows their phrases. He curses and shouts when he is angry. He is only acting like his parents. Mimicking them in respect not in mockery.
At first it just words. The child doesn’t really understand what he means. He is a copycat. Trying to fit in. Trying to be accepted. He craves attention. He is no longer coddled and wishes his parents to notice him. He acts like them to show that they have taught him well. It is a ploy but a respectful gift to those who provided for him. He is young enough to not fully grasp the absurdity of the phrases he has uttered. He simply follows by example. Monkey see monkey do monkey get in trouble. Troubled he reflects and learns the difference. He hears his father yell at his mother so he copies but his father scolds him. He replies it was an accident. Yelling at your mother is wrong. Never do that again. The child learns the difference between accidents and intentional. When he hears his father yell at the tv after a failed first down he copies. His father slaps him on the back good job son. Proud of his accomplishment. Different settings have different responses. Context is key. The learning curve is slow distinguishing by variables presented. Flying animals are birds but different birds have different names. Even though they look different they are all birds.
Educational interpretation is sentimental to the child. Watching his father’s dedication to his favourite team every week yelling at the tv cheering inspires a devotion to the same team. He heart is set. He approaches the sport with routine passion. Valuing their play and capability. Like father like son. His mother watches the news every morning. His mother snarls at the television. Disgruntled from the political fabric. She says president bad. His mother smiles. He doesn’t know what it means but he gradually becomes aligned with her political views. Watching the news with her. The chain from parent to child is sacred. One of ingestion and embodiment. The child incorporates the nuances of what he hears into his worldview. Whether or not he understands what it means. His outlook on otherness is based on his parents’ position. He does not discriminate he only follows their lead. Yet dogmatically he holds to these views. His comprehension is loose but his illustration is exact.
He accords his views with his education. With the nuances of his mentor objectives. He is innocent and immature. He does not know any better. In a humble acceptance of futility he adorns the perspectives of his parents. He trusts few and those few he mimics. His view is monolithic and sacred. He cultivates an echo chamber. The entire world is boxed in. Only what he sees by a specified few does he incorporate. His outlook is moulded by reliance on these few. These words are dogmatised. It may bore him but he finds them to be truth. It is in his immobile state that he internalises that which is abstract to him. He believes all that is outside himself. All that stands outside his experience has an asterisk. If he cannot dispute it he accepts its fact. His limited knowledge places much of reality in this sphere. It is the things that he can contest that are mitigated. What remains beyond his comprehension he applies to the meta-truth. The level of literal acceptance. His humility to his ignorance is stable.
The disputable areas are those affecting him. If his parents force him to go bed earlier he may rebel. This trust is only relevant if it doesn’t affect him. His parents may say books are great but he doesn’t find them great. A parent may imply an ideal but he slowly learns how to act. He is habituated in a certain way. In the short run he pushes back but the child is powerless to make any change. Only those irritating aspects like reading a book or going to sleep early does he find a way around. As these are punishments on him but positives are marked with great significance. His perception is guided by how it is placed upon him and what others do. He is not angry that he has to go to bed early but because he is missing his favourite show or because his friend goes to sleep later. The detrimental impact is related to how it’s applied in other cases. His deduction is one-sided. It must be equal everywhere. If he can do it why can’t I. Wanting to be like an adult yet still immature. He doesn’t understand the full picture only what he desires.
Undisputed areas are a shock to him as he grows. He follows the insights of his parents. He has no one to contest or challenge his view. He believes he is right. There was never an alternative or any pushback. Even if he never uttered or understood, his first encounter with the otherness he speaks inappropriately unknowingly. It is only with lacking education or skewed education that the incidental words become internalised rhetoric. Whether or not a parent’s actions are intentional, his words regarding a certain procedure or person may be cynical in a moment that affects the child for his life. Infecting the child’s mind into a crude adult. A parent making a derogatory comment about a certain individual labels that person in a negative light. The image that word subconsciously remains in the child’s mind. A mother crying over a certain individual courses fury through his veins. No remedy means continued belief. Until the parent says otherwise the truth remains. Especially if the same issue persists it emboldens in the child’s mind.
Children are innocent and ignorant. Easily swayed by action and experience. Events mark their territory in the long term memory bank. These perceptions are cradled into the subconscious cultivating a narrow world view based on adolescent internalisation. The immature audio translates experience into dogmatic belief. A difficulty when encountering the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment