Becky_Interpretivism

Becky_Interpretivism

One example of interpretivist theory is the U.S. Supreme Court. Interpretivism is in the bottom left corner of Dr. Scanlan's grid indicating that the theory is both subjective and regulative. The work and purpose of the U.S. Supreme court falls in this spectrum. Justices are regulated by existing law and precedence yet the cases that come before them do so due to the interpretitive nature of such cases. As was discussed in class, the issue with Sotomayor is her willingness to concede that her lived experiences and cultural background will most likely guide her in her opinions, along with her ability to be objective (if that is possible) and only look at the facts of each case. Supreme court cases are a phenomena of the social world which Hatch and Yanow believe cannot be viewed in the same way as the natural world - the basis of interpretivism. If supreme court justices were completely positivistic no one would care who did the job as long as they were capable. But because supreme court justices will interpret the law maybe in ways that are not in keeping with current policy many politicians, in an effort to either change the social order or preserve the social order, are heavily invested in these decisions.

MODERN ART and Interpretivism Interpretivism can be well-explained by looking at modern art. The images below will mean different things to different people based on their lived-experiences, education and background. They are subjective. The artist may think of them one way but the consumer of the art may agree or disagree with the artist, there is no "truth" because it is all interpretation. In this first image I see sadness and destruction but someone else might see hope and beauty. And I think the second image symbolizes breaking out of a trap, stretching towards new experiences or growing.