Fixing the Text: Controlling the Chaos of Interpretations

"New ways of reading gave ways to new ways of writing texts and both gave rise to new ways of thinking about the world and about the mind" (143).

As I attempt to wrap my feeble brain around the concepts Olson provides for us, I am fascinated by the historical journey literacy has played in our development. As Olson contends, Western society evolved through the development of new ways of reading text. I now understand that in the course of human history writing like any technology was developed in order to solve a problem which in turn created new problems which necessitated new solutions.

The main problem writing creates is its inability to answer the question "What do you mean?" Because the body is removed from the utterance, the lexical system inadequately represents the "illocutionary force" intended by the writer. Thus, although writing solves a myriad of practical problems, it creates a multitude of new problems. The notion of how to control the chaos of numerous interpretations or as Olson refers to as "fixing the text" arises from the limitations of the writing system. The need for "experts" to dictate to the masses the "true" meaning of specific written utterances allowed for new ways of thinking, reading, and writing. In addition, I contend that those who controlled the interpretations controlled the masses.

I knew religion would find its way into the discussion sooner or later. God forbid we have people misinterpreting the Bible (note: intended irony, just in case you were unsure). Olson contends that our (Western Civilization's) reading history is really the history of reading the Bible. I liked how Olson explains the progression of interpreting the Bible and how it mirrors changes in societal ideology. Now in our post-modernistic understanding we recognize unlike Luther that to get at "what was meant" from "what was said" we have to ground our interpretations within a historical and cultural context. As Olson states, at different periods of history, people thought, spoke, and meant differently. It is oversimplification to assume that people viewed the world exactly the same way over time. Because writing created a need to read the world differently, new ways of thinking about the world developed. As Olson argues, "we no longer assume that the ancient writers used categories like our own" (155). Unfortunately, if I may add my "two cents" (this is MY Blog, right?), I doubt that when Olson uses "we", he means everybody. I would argue to the contrary that many still interpret the Bible much in the same way Luther did. . .but perhaps that is off the subject and needs to be the topic of a later discussion.