Can you see the gorilla? |
I spent a few pages in the Introduction of my James Through the Centuries reception history commentary explaining the theoretical/philosophical foundations for my approach to reception history of the Bible. I am not repeating that more detailed argumentation in this student-oriented textbook on the reception history of the parables. I am including a section, however, that explains in a slightly humorous (maybe) way one reason why reception history is helpful: It helps us see gorillas that might otherwise be invisible.
Here is the first draft of that short section:
The
Invisible Gorilla, Parables, and Reception History
Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual
person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the
process of their dialogic interaction (Bakhtin 1984: 110).
This quote, perhaps
better than any other, helps to illustrate the philosophical foundation of my
approach to reception history—and why I do reception history in the first place.
No one person or interpreter holds a monopoly on truth, and an essential
element of reception history—and the search for meaning in these texts—is
listening to and interacting with a wide range of voices, including those whose
voices are usually not heard.
One basic truth
concerning the interpretation of any narrative is that any interpreters tend to
find what they expect to find in a narrative. What interpreters expect to see
influences what they see. This selective attention places blinders on
interpreters, blinders that can only be removed when interpreters join in
dialogues with other interpreters who have different perspectives,
presuppositions, and modes of analysis.
The famous
“invisible gorilla” experiment by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons illustrates
how our perceptions of what we things is “reality” are skewed by our
preconceptions. Participants in the experiment were asked to watch a brief
video in which three people in white shirts pass a basketball back and forth to
each other and three people in black shirts also pass a basketball back and
forth to each other. Viewers of the video were instructed to count the number
of passes the people in the white shirts made to each other. In the middle of
the brief video, a person dressed in a gorilla suit walks from slowly from the
right side of the screen into the middle of the six people passing basketballs,
stops, faces the camera, and beats his chest before slowly walking off to the
viewers’ left. The person in the gorilla suit spends a total of nine seconds on
the screen (see www.theinvisiblegorilla.com).
Surprisingly, almost
half of the viewers of the video did not see the gorilla; because they were
focused on counting the number of passes made between the players in white
shirts, the gorilla became invisible to them. I have shown students in some of
my classes over the past few years, and a similar percentage does not see the
gorilla. What we look for influences what we see, and interpreters can miss a
significant number of elements in a narrative simply because of their own
contexts and presuppositions. Interpreters may believe that they interpret the
text “as it is” as objectively and completely as possible but actually overlook
a number of significant elements, metaphorical gorillas stroll through the
narrative sight unseen. Reception history helps to overcome these shortcomings
and remove exegetical blinders from interpreters, especially when diverse
voices from various perspectives are included in the conversations.
No comments:
Post a Comment