How to Make an Interpretation
William Ashton, Ph.D.
City University of New York, York College
Making and presenting an interpretation is quite simple and involves three
steps. In the first step, present the theory you wish to use for your
interpretation. In the second step, present the observation you wish to
interpret. And finally, draw the parallels between the theory and the
observation.
This example is from a class where students had to interpret TV show
characters from a personality-theory perspective (in this case the student
choose Freud).
All in the Family
Freud’s oedipal complex is resolved when the superego is formed (Monte,
1999, p. 89). According to Freudian Theory, the consequence of such is a
jealousy of rivals between the son and father (Monte, 1999, p. 90). We
can see a displacement or sublimation of the oedipal complex in the
relationship between Archie [Bunker] and Mike [Stivic]. Both Mike and
Archie are rivals for the female – in this case Gloria. Archie refers to Gloria
as “my little girl.” This statement of Archie’s can be interpreted to mean
that he wishes to solely have the attentions of his beloved daughter. Mike
is Gloria’s husband and has sexual access to Gloria (this fact is flaunted in
Archie’s face by discussions of Gloria being on the birth-control pill and by
Mike and Gloria sharing a pair of pajamas). Thus, Mike and Archie are
rivals for the attentions of Gloria’s affections. This rivalry is sublimated
(Monte, 1999, p. 205) to political and social rivalries between Mike and
Archie. That is, instead of confronting each other about the real rivalry,
the repressed oedipal issues, Mike and Archie argue about more socially
appropriate topics. Interesting enough, Archie, the father-in-law, takes
the conservative pole (or the position of the repressive superego) while
Mike takes the other position. This parallels the oedipal conflict of the
repressive superego representing the father.
Analysis:
Step one: present the theory.
The student did this in the first two sentences where she talked about the
oedipal complex.
Step two: present the observation.
She did this in the sentence beginning with, “Both Make and Archie are
rivals…”
Step three: draw the parallels.
This sections begins in the sentence, “Thus, Mike and Archie are rivals for
the attentions…”
This example is from Introductory Psychology. Students were asked to
write about …
Skinner’s Perspective on Milgram’s Experiments
Skinner's beliefs about psychology focused upon observable events;
reinforcement contingencies in the environment (e.g. positive and
negative reinforcement) and behavior. While Skinner acknowledged the
existence of internal states (such as feelings, thoughts and desires), he felt
that these internal events had no effect upon behavior.
Milgram's experiments examined the affect of an authority figure on
obedience behavior. Milgram found that when an authority figure
ordered a person to shock someone, a majority of people did -regardless of their feelings and thoughts and (of major interest to Milgram)
regardless of their moral principles.
In critiquing Milgram's experiments and conclusions, I feel that Skinner
would find much in Milgram's experiments to support his ideas about
Behaviorism, but would disagree with Milgram's interest in his subject's
sense of morality. For example, Skinner would point out that the authority
figure was using negative reinforcement on the teacher (every time the
teacher would hesitate, the experimenter would nag the teacher until the
teacher would obey). Skinner would also point out that we have a long
history of being conditioned (either by positive or negative reinforcement
or punishment) to obey authority. Thus, the signs of authority (e.g. white
lab coat) are secondary reinforcers. But, Skinner would feel that Milgram
was wasting time talking about the teachers' moral beliefs. To Skinner, a
moral belief is an internal state and has no effect upon behavior.
While not exactly following the format, you can see that the first
paragraph presents the theory to be used, the second paragraph
presents the observation to interpreted, and the third paragraph draws
the parallels.
This last example is an example of how not to interpret something.
Groupthink in 12 Angry Men
The jury members in 12 Angry Men were obliviously using groupthink. They
were acting as if they were invulnerable and that they couldn’t make
wrong decisions, even though they were playing with someone’s life. For
example, they really quickly came to a guilty verdict and some jurors were
even playing hangman. The jury also use outgroup stereotypes against
the accused and people like him. They often talked about “those
people” and the “problems” they have obeying the law. Finally, many
negative comments were said about Henry’s Fonda’s character and
paper wads were thrown at the bald juror when they just questioned any
of the group’s assumptions. Thus, the jury also applied direct pressures on
the dissenters. Groupthink occurs when the pressure to conform are so
great that independent actions and thinking are restricted. We see many
examples in 12 Angry Men.
I’ve rewritten this paragraph:
Groupthink in Twelve Angry Men
Groupthink occurs when the pressures to conform are so great that
independent actions and thinking are restricted. When groupthink occurs
several common characteristics of groupthink can easily been seen, such
as an illusion of invulnerability, the use of outgroup stereotypes and direct
pressure on dissenters. We can see illustrations of these elements of
groupthink in the film, Twelve Angry Men.
In Twelve Angry Men, during the jury deliberations, jurors at first quickly
rushed through the process. Some jurors even played hangman. Also,
there were many references by juror, when discussing the accused,s to
the “problems” “those people” have with obeying the law. Finally, any
juror who disagreed with the original consensus was verbally attacked
and the bald juror had paper wads thrown at him.
These events clearly illustrate an illusion of invulnerability, a belief in the
inherent morality of the group and direct pressure on dissenters. The
speed at which the jury originally came to consensus, along with how little
they attention some jurors paid (e.g. some were playing hangman)
illustrates how invulnerable they felt. That is, they were so certain that they
were right they felt that they could rush through deliberations and goof
off. The many comments made by jurors regarding “those people”
(people where the accused lived) indicates that many of the jurors felt
free to use stereotypes about the outgroup (in this case, poor people like
the accused). Finally, everyone verbally attacked Henry Fonda’s
character when he just questioned the guilty verdict. Also, the bald juror,
when he spoke to support Fonda’s character, had paper wads thrown at
him. This illustrates direct verbal and physical pressure on dissenters.
Which version convinces you more?