Interpretations

How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations?

Interpretation is central to the current world. Turn on the TV, or open a phone, and various interpretations of art, contemporary issues, and other subjects spring to digital life. While interpretation may not be a matter of “right” and “wrong”, in the sense of complete adherence to a physical, platonic, or other ideal, it is possible to distinguish good and bad interpretations. No universal standard can be applied to adjudicate differing interpretations, but a variety of considerations improve and worsen interpretations, as demonstrated in the arts and human sciences.

To begin, interpretations can be decided as better or worse depending on the motive and methodology of the interpreter. Interpretations done without prejudice and unfair intent are better than the contrary, as further prejudice shifts views away from interpretation and toward propaganda or biased argumentation. Interpretations are better when they approach works without a predetermined mission, outcome, or ideology. When this isn’t accomplished, it leads to poor interpretation. For example, when Geraldo Rivera of Fox News attacks Kendrick Lamar and claims that hip-hop has "done more damage to young African-Americans than racism" (Daly), he isn’t open to other points of view, and seeks to interpret for the sake of furthering his own perspectives. This is supported by the fact that he explains his beliefs by inserting his unsubstantiated views of black-on-black crime, claiming Lamar’s musical message, “pales in comparison to the ghetto civil war that’s being waged”. From Rivera’s interviews and statements, he opines on art in comparison to his own ideology, claiming that Drake is better than Lamar because he is more “celebratory” while Lamar is “doom and gloom”. This is despite countless examples supporting the contrary, as Drake frequently supports violence and seeks to belittle his enemies, like on “6 God” (Graham), while Kendrick reflects on his own mistakes and hypocrisy, as on “XXX” (Duckworth). As a result, his interpretation of Lamar’s songs is unfair and weak because it overlays his ideal world and judges how close Kendrick Lamar is to his own values. In general, the types of interpretation judging in relation to unsubstantiated assertion of what is supposedly correct are weak because they don’t approach works fairly and assign value based on normative principles personal to the interpreter.

Next, interpretations are better when the interpreter stays internally consistent, so when faced with similar scenarios, one assesses these features evenly across multiple instances. The logical framework of the interpreter isn’t necessarily better or worse, but it should be applied fairly and evenly. For example, music reviewer Anthony Fantano practices consistency in his appraisals of various NAV albums. NAV, a Canadian rapper, has extremely similar music between albums. To demonstrate, a majority of songs on 2 of his 3 albums, Reckless and Bad Habits, are produced by NAV himself, all displaying his signature style. As NAV’s works are generally very similar, Fantano gives 3 NAV albums the same negative score. He explains the lack of distinction between the 3, therefore justifying an equal adjudication. The core reasoning stays the same as he identifies the traits, such as poor vocal tonality, and uninspired production, that result in a low rating and opinion (Fantano). While some may disagree with his disapproval of these albums, these reviews still stand as strong interpretations because they have consistent reasoning and don’t approach the works unfairly.

Furthermore, internal consistency still applies across different fields or areas of knowledge even though the guiding principles of interpretation vary. In law, a human science, Justice Neil Gorsuch utilizes textualism, a legal philosophy stating laws are best interpreted through the words in the law as generally understood, in his majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Even though he was nominated by Trump, he voted with the “liberals” of the U.S. Supreme Court due to his consistent methodology in legal interpretation. He decided that certain areas should be under the jurisdiction of various Indian nations, stating, “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word” (Gorsuch), referring to previous treaties that granted control to these nations. While one may disagree with his conclusion, his reasoning is sound because he approaches the issue without considering personal interests, or outside factors, and evenly applies his principles. On the contrary, Justice Samuel Alito demonstrates inconsistency through his legal opinions, as he applies his originalism differently and arbitrarily across cases. To explain, Alito attacks Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood through the lens of constitutional originalism in a leaked draft decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Alito). As it stands, this ruling would overturn the right to abortion in the United States. In Dobbs, He claims that there is no right to abortion because the constitution doesn’t explicitly mention abortion as an enumerated right. However, he sided with the majority in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, regarding personal loans on political campaigns (Roberts). The majority held that political freedom of speech covers this political activity, meaning that Ted Cruz could legally loan money with interest to his campaign, then receive donations to his campaign in order to repay his personal loan in addition to the interest charged. This contradicts Alito’s stance in Dobbs, as even though the constitution doesn't mention this specific type of campaign loans as an unalienable, enumerated right, he believes that other rights can be interpreted to form this right. However, some may hold that consistent philosophy stands in the way of strong decision making; flexibility and pragmatism are sacrificed for a principle. While this may sometimes take place, it’s not necessarily true that consistent methodology results in unyielding interpretation, as for many, their philosophy of interpretation lies in pragmatism or utilitarianism itself. For instance, Richard Posner, a US federal judge, states, “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?” (Liptak). This explains his thinking in legal interpretation, that regardless of original intent or textual meaning, law should come to the most reasonable conclusion, proving that consistency in interpretation isn’t inefficacy for the sake of principle.

In opposition, some may claim that interpretations of various AOKs, especially art, are subjective and individual; they are simply differences of opinion between people with nothing better or worse. However, flaws proliferate within this argumentation. First, some works elicit common responses in individuals, which suggests a widespread effect that isn’t simply different for every person. For example, The Guardian describes Frank Ocean’s Endless as “hazy” (Jonze). Spin magazine states, “Endless feels formless” (Spin). The similar language of overall shapelessness suggests that while works of art don’t engender uniform, identical responses, there are non-coincidental commonalities in interpretations of a given work.. Another aspect lies in the real world application of interpretation. Some may say that it is a matter of opinion, but the way people approach it in practice opposes this notion. For example, Singaporean restaurateur Chan Hon Meng saw his business grow from a street chicken stall to a multi-nation chain because he was awarded a Michelin star with meals of under $3 (Pomranz). The explosion of interest after the Michelin star illustrates the impact of certain interpretations. For most reviewers, a single strong positive review wouldn’t be important, but because people hold Michelin to a high pedigree, this one instance led to unforeseen success. Therefore, practical examples demonstrate a general conception that certain interpretations can be better than others, evidenced by the heightened impact of such interpretations.

Lastly, effective communication and substantiation form a better interpretation; if two have the same stance, the interpretation that is better argued by the interpreter, and understood by the audience is preferable. This differentiates unsubstantiated belief and reasoned interpretation, as an interpretation is justified when the supportive argumentative mechanisms can be communicated to others. This is supported by interpretations of basketball, which Kyrie Irving calls “an art form” (Yang). To elaborate, while Skip Bayless of ESPN, and Ben Taylor of Thinking Basketball both believe Michael Jordan to be the greatest basketball player, Taylor’s interpretation is significantly better because it is better supported. Bayless explains that Jordan is greater than Lebron simply because of “sheer killer will,” (Bayless) an entirely narrative argument with no evidence supporting. This idea is especially frivolous considering Lebron’s feats which include being the first player to lead his team coming back from a 1-3 deficit in the NBA finals, requiring immense will in a scenario most see as impossible. On the other hand, Taylor watched countless hours of game film to observe each player’s skill-set and impact, and used multiple advanced statistics such as AuPM, BPM, and PIPM that measure a player’s effect (Taylor). These explanations can be digested and reflected upon, unlike Bayless’s mock psychoanalysis. Because he supported his interpretation with qualitative and quantitative analysis and didn’t rely solely on unsubstantiated narratives, Ben Taylor’s interpretation of basketball is stronger than Skip Bayless’s. This demonstrates the importance of argumentation as a better argued interpretation is a better interpretation.

In conclusion, the numerous arts and human sciences explored don’t necessarily prove a universally true interpretation. However, there’s strong evidence to suggest interpretations can be decided as better or worse, despite opposing claims of subjective, equal legitimacy, as insight in the practical world demonstrates a strong leaning toward a wider belief of differing efficacy. From the given analysis, numerous axes can determine the value of an interpretation, raising, or lowering validity in a wide array of fields. Chief amongst these axes, stand open methodology and motive, consistency between interpretations, and effective argumentation, which are applicable across areas of knowledge, and through specific fields.