I just read another piece in which the author warns his readers about the "dangers" of Supreme Court Justices who fail to interpret the constitution literally. It was yet another alarmist and uninformed attack on what people of that persuasion refer to as "activist judges." It seems that, put a slightly different way, what people such as this are advocating is the avoidance of what we call "reading between the lines," as opposed, I suppose, to what one might read "in the lines." Well, I hate to be the one breaking the news, but for anyone whose interest is in getting at meaning, there is no such useful activity as reading "in" the lines, either in print or in listening to oral presentation. All meaning must be derived by reading "between the lines," so to speak.
What about scientific writing or talk, someone will quickly point out. I do not hesitate when I respond, "Not any different from any other subject." I assume, and safely so I might add, that thinking is a symbolic activity (since we do not have the world in our heads, only symbols for the world) and that knowing what man can and cannot do with symbols is at the heart of the subject we know as "the humanities." The humanities are composed of various ways in which people exchange symbolizations, conceptualizations of the world, or part of it, with others. These conceptualizations, so far as I can tell, exist only in what we call "language," broadly defined to include all uses of symbols. Another way to name it is "metaphor": X (some part of the world as I perceive it) is like Y (my conception of it). For example, I look at a lot of people out there and say "That is society." Then I further order what I see by saying, "Society is like a cake with three layers, and I'll call them upper class, middle class, and lower class." That is my metaphor, my concept, my model. That is a rather outdated concept I suppose, but it serves as an example of my point. But the humanities are not different, in that regard, from the sciences, social sciences, or other areas: They too tell me what the world looks like when seen through a particular vocabulary. If I ask what does the mountain look like to you? Of the biologist, chemist, realtor, botanist, archaeologist, conservationist, physicist, highway engineer, or geologist, I get different answers. Each one seems to tell me what the mountain IS, in his own vocabulary, yet each one is telling me only what he sees it as being like. In other words, the scientist who tells what reality "really is" is not telling us that at all; he is telling us what he thinks it IS LIKE. He is making a metaphor, through which, if the truth be known, he reveals as much about the teller as he does about the reality he is reporting.
But let's consider a situation a bit more common, although with perhaps even more import. I would guess that at any given moment, someone, somewhere, is telling someone else, in language I may or may not understand, "I love you." Let us consider for a moment what those simple words mean. That expression presents an opportunity for me to make a point about the nature of deriving meaning from others' symbolizations, be it through common expression, expressions in a holy book such as the Christian Bible, or as language that comprises the U. S. Constitution; you name it. I once knew a man who, upon returning to his home from work one evening, related to his wife an account of his having missed a head-on collision with a very large truck, by only inches, earlier in the day. He had been waiting all day to tell her the story, expecting sympathy and expressions of relief and happiness at his having survived this near death experience. Her first response, however, was to inquire as to whether he had pursued buying additional life insurance as he had told her he intended to do several weeks prior. He was crushed: apparently her first thoughts were of the largesse she would enjoy from his untimely demise, rather than his good fortune at having narrowly missed an engagement with the Grim Reaper. He vented. She marched off to bed, apparently unrepentant. A couple of hours later, he retired as well, finding his wife apparently asleep in the marital bed. He had just gotten settled in, however, when he felt her hand on his side, as she said softly, "You know I love you." And it's there I wish to interrupt this lovely little domestic scene to focus upon the phrase, "I love you," posing the question, "What does it mean, and how does one go about determining that?" If one is to arrive at the meaning of those words by reading "in" the lines, one need merely look up the definitions of the words in a good dictionary or rely on one's knowledge of the words' meanings from memory; I would propose, however, and I believe you would readily agree, that any substantive meaning of those words as she spoke them at that moment would derive from precisely that: the fact that she said them to her husband at that time, under those circumstances. She might have meant, "I wish I hadn't said what I said, and I'm sorry"; or "I wish I hadn't said what I said, but I meant every word, and now I hope you will fail to recognize that and allow me to get by with it," and so on. Use your imagination. The point is that whatever meaning those words had was absolutely dependent upon who said said them and in what context; in other words, they had meaning only by "reading between the lines."
Can one ever know exactly what someone else's words mean, whether they are written in a letter, some famous document, or holy book, or spoken? The answer is clearly no; however, we can get at the meaning in the best way possible by attempting to account for who said them to whom and in what context. We look for patterns and clues, subjecting all that, then, to rigorous activities of reason, perhaps even bringing some of the dreaded logic to bear, making every effort to arrive at as reasonable an interpretation as is humanly possible. Do people regularly go about attempting to ascertain meaning in such a way? Not really. We all approach every situation armed with an arsenal of stereotypes, biases, and predetermined assumptions as to what particular words and phrases mean, irrespective of who says them or under what circumstances. To further complicate matters, the average college graduate knows only 6,000 to 8,000 words, although getting by in day to day life with only about 2,000, while an ordinary college professor might know 11,000 to 14,000, while using only about 6,000 to 8,000 regularly. Shakespeare is said to have used fewer than 18,000 in writing all those masterful works, and many of those he invented, or "coined." But even if one were to become familiar with all 600,000 English words, it would not alter the facts of how we derive meaning: we always have to "read between the lines."
In closing, allow me to point out that many attack interpretive analysis of language as though it were an effort to subvert the "real" meaning of some text or another. Sorry, but that is just foolish and ignorant petulance. This isn't a path to meaning one chooses or not; it is, in fact, the only way to meaning, and even then, it does not lead inexorably or even predictably to what one might call "true" or "final" meaning. There is no such thing; this is just the best we can do.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.As pointed out previously, your analogy to every other writing doesn't work in the legal context. There are two schools of thought about constitutional interpretation, strict constructionist and a living breathing Constitution. There are legal and statutory rules for interpretation of laws. The free flow of ideas in art or literature doesn't equate to trying to regulate legal society. Most conflicts in the US Constitution are easily solved by the tenth amendment. Anyting not spelled out is left to the states or the people.
lerlo
Level 8
May 1, 2019
0
Even though there might be a category of interpretation which is referred to as "legal rules," that ashould not be understood to indicate that thee is in any way an obligation to interpret the language of any legal document in such a way. After all, that's why we have courts and trials, and lawyers interpreting those laws and trying to convince judges, and so on. The primary job of the Supreme Court Justices is to interpret the language of the highest law in the land, the U. S. Constitution. And it is the Constitution that I was referencing. They try to advance opinions in keeping with prior decisions, particularly if those decisions have been sufficiently tested they can be referred to as "settled law." but that does not limit them as to the manner in which they might interpret it. Irrespective of the Constitution and law, however, language is language is language, and facts are facts, and the only way one can interpret someone else's language is to "read between the lines," recognizing context and filtering meaning through our own experience, relying, finally upon the context in which we are considering the language. Period. Sorry, but that is just the nature of language. There will be as many interpretations as there are people trying to understand it and that's where the judges, the professors, the linguists, and other "experts" recognized as such by most people. Their judgement might not turn out to be in concert, but eventually someone must made the final judgement. Then comes the second part: that person must be prepared to present sufficient evidence, expressed in a logically valid form, to support that judgement. How about this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." We are, in this country, as I write this, in the midst of turmoil over the meaning of just those several words, and we have been for the pat several years. You tell me the best way to interpret those words in a way that will please veryone.
@EduardoVallejo well apparently you're not an attorney. The supreme Court is ruled by stare decisis, and they are bound by previous decisions unless there is a change in the law or proof of change of a fact or serious flaw in the previous decision. there are also rules about interpreting statutes. Sorry, it's not up to every individual. They have to take the meaning of the words as they're written unless there is some ambiguity. It's easier for a professor to try and determine what's between the lines but that's not how our courts are set up. They are also not bound to please everyone. In every legal case someone wins and someone loses. The first amendment religious cases are pretty set in terms of the law. Is there some new religious issue that's come up that I'm not aware of?
If we were to do it your way, every time we got a new judge with a different opinion on what was "between the lines" the law would change--talk about termoil...
@lerlo As the world changes, and change it does inexorably, how do you suppose the court proceeds when an issue is brought before it from a perspective not entertained by that court? The court is not a machine into which one simply enters the facts and it grinds out solutions; at least that's not how it is supposed to work. I am hoping that decisions are made by living, breathing, thinking beings; otherwise why even stage trials? All cases could be handled by skillfully programmed computers. Heaven forbid, though, that anyone should actually think and have to make decisions using one's mental abilities. I hope you are not either a lawyer or a judge.
@EduardoVallejo yes it is nice to live in the world of a professor where you can dream and hope of things. The law is based on facts and statutes. "Whoops I forgot to make an argument" doesn't work. Unless there is still still an appeal left. There would have to be a new case, and as I said before, a change in facts or a flaw in the previous decision. I know these things because I am an attorney and I was a judge. Cases are many times distinguished by their facts. That's how courts sometimes get around previous decisions. I know you can't picture the turmoil that would occur in a courtrhouse of say 20 different judges all hearing the same type of case and all making different decisions.
Of course if we are reading a Shakespeare sonnet we are going to read between the lines and we are going to allow an emotional interpretation. That is different than interpreting a statute precisely crafted by lawyers. In interpreting legal language a certain degree of freedom might be necessary but the general rule is to go by what was written down, not by what someone wishes had been written, or by what someone thinks was the psychological state of mind of the lawmakers.
What judges do is iron out conflicting laws, analyzing the meanings of various laws that affect the case in question. That undertaking is not a precise science but depends on judgment, which might be arbitrary or influenced by personal emotions.
Despite the imprecise nature of human language, the role of courts should be to interpret existing laws—the laws enacted by our duly elected representatives. What raises alarm in my mind is when a zealous group of social reformers attempt to use the court system to have their will imposed on the public. The correct place to decide law is in the legislature, not in the courts.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Apr 12, 2019
1
There is such a thing as letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The former is massaged for advantage, while the later recognizes the context, environment, and intent for which it was written.
What worries me is when people think that a document created by humans is so inviolate that it cannot be interpreted and modified to account for and reflect the changes in society, undetstanding, and demographic needs and demands. Sort of like theist fundamentalists who continue to demand a literal interpretation of their dogmatic document.
@t1nick I agree, but before the letter of the law is observed, there needs to be a law in the first place, a law duly enacted by our legislative representatives.
More often the alleged spirit of the law is massaged for advantage while what was actually written and intended goes out the window.
@t1nick So if a law has become outdated whose duty is it to repeal that law and enact a new and improved version? It is the duty of none other than the legislative branch of government and courts have no role unless there are conflicting laws. Even then, the problem should be fixed through legislation where possible.
@WilliamFleming You raise a good point to consider and think about
I believe I understand from whence you are coming, Mr. Fleming, and I detect a rather thick coating of political paint on your remarks. However, I will gladly repeat my point that language, and as specified in my little piece, I use language in the broadest sense,in that it encompasses all complex systems of symbols, be those symbols musical notes, words, visual representations, mathematical expressions, or what have you. They all function the same: symbols are used to represent something other than themselves, and what each represents is never fixed in stone. Consder the word "he" "she," "we," "run," "slow," "fast," "corner," words which all turn up regularly in legal documents, police reports, legal suits, and so on. None have fixed meanings; all must be interpreted in the way I suggest. Certainly, legal jargon is oneof the more carefully framed of the professional anguages, but science and math are more so, and all rely upon interpretation other than looking in a dictionary or textbook. Otherwise, there would not be so many legal cases in which two or more sides on an isskue present different interpretations of the laws. There would be no need of a Supreme court, whose job it is to INTERPRET THE LANGUAGE OF A LAW. But even after that interpretation, many will reasonably disagree with their interpretation. I just read yet another theoretical physicist this very evening who has serious qualms about existing laws of Quantum Mechanics concerning, specifically with time and gravity. There are a couple of more interesting terms in need of multiple definitions. None oaf the terms that we say point to indications of character can be satisfactorily defined. I think for example of the terms, "honor, courage, honesty,patriotism, and so on Don't fight it , Mr. Fleming. As much as some of us wish it to be so, language can never be anything more or less than it is, a complex symbol system through which we define our selves and our worlds.
@EduardoVallejo I understand and agree with your well-written response sir. Yes, words are just symbols and they are meaningful only when they resonate within us. I was just castigated by a Brit for making my own definition for the word “spirituality”, but rather than calling me to task he could have tried to understand what I was saying.
I lean toward libertarianism but am not deeply interested in politics, trying to maintain objectivity. For example, I voted for Obama and supported him throughput because of his intelligence and courage, although I was not in favor of all of his actions.
I look forward to more of your ideas.
I write to my brother and I say, "Well, I must go now and cut the grass, and you know how I love to cut the grass." I have another request from the Aryan Brotherhood to stage a protest next Saturday near the AME Church on Twelfth Street. I can't wait to read their stated reasons for making the request." What is the best way for me to interpret those statements? Neither of them falls into the category of Shakespeare, so how should I proceed? What would happen if I just look up the meanings of the words in a dictionary? As to the Brit, or should I say Jerk, he could easily have asked you for clarification of your use of the word. Notice that he was not concerned with what you meant, he was likely hung up on his understanding of a dictionary meaning. I'd say go back to England and irritate your fellow citizens..
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.