Finding meaning.

This cartoon "clearly displays":

* ugly racism

* ugly and stupid Klan members

* whatever the observer thinks

When above appeared in the Toledo (Ohio) Blade, our local paper, on June 22, 1998, it set off a flood of angry letters to the editor. Many letter writers claimed that the cartoon displayed the racist and insensitive views of the paper's editors. A spokesperson for the paper replied that the cartoon showed "ugly and ignorant Klan members." More letters came in response to that explanation, many rejecting it.

From time to time newspapers include cartoons and editorials that cause readers to claim that "what the cartoons and editorials say" offends them. In many cases someone "intends" to say or demonstrate "something" but readers "discover" something very different. Students of general semantics may recognize this kind of dispute as a dispute over the location of meaning.

Where do we find meaning?

Many accept the view that meanings "exist" in cartoons and editorials. This perspective often rests on the unarticulated assumption that "any darn fool can see what I see." Sometimes "darn fools" see something different. Individuals who "see something different" demonstrate the observer's role in creating meaning. Questioning "where meaning comes from" does not necessarily bring closure to the issue, but the question can contribute to our awareness when discussing an important issue.

Early education can contribute to "learning" that meanings reside in words and other symbols.

This common view about the location of meaning often results from early education. Children learn in grade school that words have inherent meanings and that "educated" individuals know or learn the meanings. Teacher admonitions to "look it up in the dictionary" contribute to this assumption. Even without their teachers intending to teach this lesson, some students begin a lifetime of assuming that whatever they observe "has meaning" and the meaning they learn to discover "is the same as" the other person intended.

A Pennsylvania judge exhibited this view August 20, 1998 in a National Public Radio interview about high school students making threats. The judge said that a person with "common sense" and "objective judgment" can distinguish between real and pseudo threats. If I understand this judge's view, he offers the perspective that the meaning of a student's comment resides within the comment, and perhaps in its delivery. This view does not seem to me to allow for an interaction between unique observers of a student's comments and the comments themselves.

Background and experience can contribute to meaning.

Individuals with different backgrounds and experiences sometimes understandably interpret what they encounter differently. For example, someone who has often experienced racial discrimination could perceive racism in an act intended as "helpful." The intent behind the act would not necessarily override the interpreted racism. Loudly asserting the intent probably adds little to the discussion about the source of meaning. Questioning the competence of the interpreter usually insults the interpreter. Disputes over the meaning of the act probably hold less promise for effective communication than individuals sharing their contextually relevant backgrounds and experiences related to the act or comment.

Explaining how and why I see things the way I do offers the other person an opportunity to look at things from my perspective. Listening to another person's reasons for seeing things a certain way can help me look at things from that person's perspective. Listening and understanding do not obligate us to accept what we hear and understand; but the understanding can reduce illegitimate claims that "the other person is wrong." Our understanding another person's perspective aids us in realizing that "looking at things from that perspective" makes the perspective "reasonable." Following this approach lowers the probability of saying that an understood perspective "is wrong." Saying instead, "I don't accept the perspective" can contribute to more productive conversations.

Sharing perspectives by disclosing contextually relevant backgrounds does more to encourage effective communication than does student detentions and psychological examinations, angry letters to the editor and editorial allegations of intent. General semanticists can contribute to this understanding by suggesting that people share their interpretations and by inviting alternative perspectives.

Unrecognized disputes about the location of meaning.

Feelings can get out of control and actions can become ugly when an individual who believes what he wrote or drew "means what he intended" while someone else "discovers" something different and disputes the alleged meaning. This kind of problem emerges when both hold incorrect views about the location of meaning. Consider the following cases:

1. Possibly many of the comments and actions following President Clinton's decision to bomb targets in Afghanistan and Sudan reflected unarticulated assumptions that meanings reside within comments and actions. Immediately following the 1998 United States attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan some elected officials, journalists, and private citizens asserted that "clearly President Clinton ordered the attacks to deflect attention from his personal problems." These assertions perhaps come from the assumption that "any darn fool" can see the meaning of the attacks.

2. Very likely a high school student "lacking good judgment" and trying to "show off" could make a comment he intended as a joke and have that comment interpreted as a legitimate threat by a teacher with "common sense" and "objective judgment." The legal, social, and personal consequences of the mistaken conclusion that the "comment was a threat" could become momentous for both student and teacher.

3. Some joking airline passengers have learned "the hard way" the role of the interpreter in determining the meaning of a "joke" about a bomb threat. Airport security people seem to have little sense of humor about "threats," even when someone claims "it was just a joke." Perhaps some passengers do not fully appreciate the grave responsibility demanded of airport security personnel who must interpret bomb threats.

Do we have an alternative to security personnel mistakenly detaining airline passengers, psychologists examining high school students, and enraged citizens writing furious letters to the editor? Consider that old joke about the psychologist who administers the Rorschach Test and claims the subject "has a dirty mind" because he keeps seeing "dirty pictures," and the subject retorts "but you brought the dirty pictures."

When people present different views of the world, those differences do not necessarily have to result in disputes. Giving reasons for our interpretations along with our interpretations can help us focus on both the reasons and the conclusions, rather than just the conclusions alone. For example, saying that the car will not start because it has no gas offers the other person a reason to accept the prediction that the car will not start. If someone offers conclusions based on previous experiences, learning about those previous experiences may persuade others to accept the conclusions. Even when we reject the conclusions, we do not have to reject the person who offers them.

I answer the three choice quiz about the cartoon by selecting option number three (whatever the observer thinks). This view probably irritates those who believe that some comments and behaviors have "clear and inescapable meanings." Even with admonitions to "read my lips," people with different backgrounds and experiences discover different meanings in what presidents and commoners say. As I've suggested in this brief essay, this happens primarily because people's comments and actions "interact" with observers, and meanings evolve from that interaction.

Professor Charles G. Russell teaches in the Department of Communication at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.