Response to Interpretation

William Dowdy
Steven Maillouxs essay is, by far, the most well written essay we have read thus far in
this course. His first paragraph is a clearly defined thesis of the essays topic. His use of
examples juxtaposed with his theories and the division of his essay promoted a better
understanding of the material.
He begins with the etymology of the word interpretation through which emerged a
key word: translation. Thus, he arrived at his first statement that interpretation is a
translation between a text and an audience. He wrote that interpretation is toward a text;
by toward, I think he means in relation to; therefore, according to Mailloux,
interpretation is in relation to a text. Thus, he gives us a working definition of
interpretation as an acceptable and approximating translation (p.121). Approximating is
another key word by which I think he means similar to. Therefore, interpretation is a
translation that is always similar to something and in relation to something (p.122).
One method for interpreting a text is the formalist theory which focuses on what the
words are similar to. Mailloux demonstrates this method by using the etymology of the
word interpretation to arrive at his definition; also, he uses the example of Daniels
punning to interpret the writing on the wall; thus, the formalist would focus on the
words by using punning or etymologies to arrive at an interpretation.
Another method for interpreting text is the intentionalist theory which focuses on the
authors intention to arrive at an interpretation. He demonstrates this through Dickensons
poem by finding the similarities between the Biblical history of the poems subject and
the biographical history of the poems author and finding their allegorical relation to the
conscience of us all (p.124). Thus, the intentionalist focuses on the authors intentions by
using history and allegory to arrive at an interpretation.
When considering the question: acceptable to whom? I think the idea that Mailloux is
trying to convey is that an interpretation is acceptable to whomever is willing to accept
it. Although Mailloux does not state it, I believe that an interpretation is acceptable as
long as the interpreter has some bases for his or her interpretation.
Maillouxs essay becomes somewhat difficult when he tries to explain the politics of
interpretation. Yet, the difficultness of this part of the essay is the point that Mailloux is
trying to make about neutral principle theory. This type of theory is rhetorical which
establishes no permanent grounding or guiding principles guaranteeing correct
interpretation but certainly providing much rhetorical substance for interpretive debate
(p.133). Everyone has an agenda; and thus, they are able to bend their rhetorical
interpretation to fit their agenda. After all, Mailloux points out that the congressional
hearings on the ABM treaty ended somewhere close to where they began (p.132).