Eyes Behind Frames

The array of responses Steph got back when she asked us to respond to the title of John Elder Robison’s book Look Me in the Eye provides a demonstration of how a frame can guide understanding. The collection shows that many people had different initial interpretations of the title.

The subtitle of the book reads “my life with asperger’s.” Knowledge over what exactly Asperger’s is would give a reader a certain frame for interpretation. For example, the following was written in a frame influenced by that understanding: “I imagined someone telling an autistic person to look them in the eye…I was already aware that its difficult.” This writer knew that Asperger’s was a form in the autism continuum and that avoidance of eye contact was a trait and made this connection to the context of the memoir’s title. This writer’s frame led him or her to interpret this title as a command given to an “Aspergian.”

Someone who is not familiar with Asperger’s would be interpreting the title under a different frame and therefore not able to reach the same conclusion. This is evident here: “I thought I was being told to look the author in the eye…” This response seems to be the product of a very literal frame of reference. In addition to this writers lack of knowledge about Asperger’s, he or she could be writing under a frame of disinterest either in respect to the memoir, the class, or the tests that Steph gives us from time to time. Or, perhaps the excerpt was taken too far from its context.

Readers unfamiliar with Asperger’s could reach any number of conclusions about the meaning of the title of Robinson’s book. It all depends on his or her frame of reference. For example, in the following quote a frame is evident “The image I had was a book about truth and integrity, with looking someone in the eye traditionally being a visual clue of honesty.” In this writer’s frame the eye represents honesty. The writer’s understanding of the cultural significance of an eye has led him or her to infer that Robinson meant for the title to express that his book is one of honesty.

All of this has to do with thought process, something very closely related if not synonymous with the concept of frames. Each person’s thought process brought him or her to a different conclusion about the meaning behind the title. After reading the title I thought “[Robison] meant it figuratively. That is, he meant to say, examine me closely . . . as I read I found there was a double meaning.” I can now see that other people have thought processes different than mine, which can bring them to conclusions equally as valid. Robison’s thought process certainly functions differently than many of us. This was expressed especially well in his explanation of his smile at the news of a death of a stranger. As we have been slowly been learning since the beginning of the semester, Steph too has a thought process somewhat foreign to many of ours. This was quite clear when she started “writing sideways” in an attempt to express herself graphically, leaving us with confused, amused expressions.

References:

Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 6 (Nov., 1975), pp. 599-60.

About this entry

You’re currently reading “Eyes Behind Frames,” an entry on Thumpasorus’s Weblog

Published:: April 1, 2008 / 7:14 pm

Category:: Small Group Communication

Tags:

John Elder Robison 4.1.08 / 9pm

Just as there may be different interpretations of specific phrases from my book, other readers may interpret whole chapters in manners different from those I intended.

As the writer, I often logically take the position that those people’s interpretation is simply wrong.

However, on other occasions, those other interpretations may lead me to greater insight; to seeing things I did not know were there in something I myself created.

That doesn’t happen in a 10 word passage but when you get to 50,000 or 90,000 words, anything is possible.

Stephanie Jo Kent 4.8.08 / 8am

John, you bring a smile to my face! I am not sure which specific point in Thump’s post inspired your reply, but I appreciate the moves you make in this comment.

First, you acknowledge an “openness” to communication. You use the example of your book, allowing that phrases or entire chapters can be read/understood by others in alternative ways than those you expected.

Second, you remind us of your logical orientation, a direct line as it were from “here” (what you intended) to “there” (a “wrong” interpretation – something other than what you wanted people to comprehend).

Third (!), you recognize a kind of inherent power in those supposed misunderstandings. (This is where I become excited, in my “sideways” manner, smile.) Of course revelations do not always happen, but the unintentional, the random or surprising interaction can lead us to something new. I would say these instances are when learning occurs.

You have made similar remarks about gaining new insights a few times in your responses to me, so now I am wondering if you are sensing something ‘new’ – something that you may be able to articulate and share with us?

I can imagine that it (whatever “it” is) may not have words, yet. I find myself, sometimes, on an edge of intuition that usually requires a concrete event which “fits” what I’ve been perceiving; then I can actually say something about it.

The one point where I disagree with you is that such interpretations leading to new knowledge can occur only in long passages or long exchanges. I can imagine a 10 word quote (from someone’s speech or their writing) that I read/hear at the ‘right’ time under the ‘right’ circumstances – ’sending’ me somewhere unforeseen or being taken by me to serve a purpose of my own, unrelated to the author or speaker’s plan.

Likewise, in a long passage, the chances of a cyclical repetition (habits of interpretation) could actually work against alternatives that could otherwise open up new possibilities. We get so used to what we (think we) know!

thumpasorus 4.9.08 / 6pm

John, thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. It was very cool to see in my email that John Elder Robison, the author of the book I have most recently read, enjoyed and discussed in class, had responded to a blog I had written.

I must say when I first read your response I was taken back a bit. I did not know how to interpret it. After rereading the response a few times, I decided you were in disagreement with most of my argument. However, I could not draw a tone from it. It is necessary to add that these difficulties are common in text communication. Still, it didn’t strike me as encouraging, or harsh. The best way word for it would probably be “direct.” This is something I probably should have expected, having read your book, but it took me by surprise.

After reading “Look Me in the Eye,” I considered myself adept in “Aspergian” interaction. I thought if I were to ever interact with you or anyone else with Asperger’s I would “get” them. However, this did not prove to be the case. As a result, for me your response was very revealing and beneficial. I have a much clearer understanding of the communication difficulties you discussed in your memoir. As they say, there is nothing like learning by doing. Perhaps I had this false confidence because your book was so personal and expressed so clearly. To a certain extent, it was also quite relatable

I agree with Steph that an interpretation of a ten word phrase can at times be quite insightful. Unfortunately I cannot recall an example, but I know there has been time when I’ve heard a familiar phrase uttered differently, leaving my paradigm in question.

On that note there is something I have to ask. You wrote “…when you get to 50,000 or 90,000 words, anything is possible.” Was there any reason you chose the numbers 50,000 and 90,000? That struck me as kind of funny, because I think people would have typically said 50 or 60. I don’t mean prod, I only ask for the sake of studying Communication.

Thanks again.

John Elder Robison 4.13.08 / 9am

I chose 50-90,000 because that’s a common length for a non fiction book that’s meant to convey some kind of message.

What I meant was, within the length of an entire book, there will be many passages and even whole major parts of the work which may be interpreted in varying ways.

The more content one has to work with, the more one can form, for example, opinions about how the writer may think.

Now, you may feel you can do that in a certain 10 word passage (as Steph suggests above) but I think that’s too short a passage to be truly revealing. To me, 10 word passages are more likely to reveal errors in editing (absence of a comma, for example) or poor word choice on the part of the author (ambiguous meaning)

I also think there are times we write things that have several possible interpretations and we do so deliberately. In such a case, if you saw multiple meanings, you simply got the total message

That said, I suppose it’s possible to get other meanings even there but that’s where I’d say the other meanings are likely to come from wrong interpretation, rather than new insight.

For example, consider the famous example where an armed Panda enters a local restaurant/nightclub. He eats shoots and leaves.

Now, you may think that are 3 or 4 dramaticlly different ways one might interpret that passage.

If I were an eyewitness, and I were the writer, I might well contend your interpretation is wrong, and I’d say the proof is out back in the ambulance, where the two lowlife bear baiters that interrupted his meal are being hauled to the hospital.

We are always temped to choose the meaning that fits our preconceived reality, but every now and then, you come up against a damn bear with a gun.

And that’s when mental agility and communication skill can really save you. Which is why you’re in a class like this, I suppose.

Stephanie Jo Kent 4.13.08 / 10am

LOL!

I hope we have no armed bear baiters in class, but one never knows, eh? Nice self-reflections, Thump. People can undermine or derail communication accidentally, simply because they are so focused on their intended meaning, or (as you said, John) their preconceived reality.

Actually, it occurs to me that I was thinking “ten word phrase” more in relation to spoken interaction than written text, although in this kind of interactive forum (blog commenting) a short phrase can take one off in wild directions, don’t you think?

We are actually playing with the notion of short phrases encapsulating multiple meanings with combining various of the critical-cultural term analyses completed by the students. Hopefully everyone will turn these in tomorrow (the first time I gave an extension on a Test!)

Thumpasorus’s Weblog

Eyes Behind Frames

About this entry

5 Comments

Have your say

About

Recently

Categories