Similar to my previous post then, going back over my sixteen stories you’ve sent me has me (re-)evaluating what was previously blogged.
Interpretation 2 – Empathic = this is probably better being renamed (and considered as) an empathic retelling.
– openness and receptivity = I am striving for this but as my supervisor points out in her feedback about my interpretive work, the previous interpretive layer which is so personal and emotional must have a direct impact on how I then go on to tune into the story as I retell it.
– actively ‘listening’ to the text = in fact this takes place very much in interpretation 3 when i am posing questions of the text, some of which your story answers, some of which have potential understandings that lay further afield then the text – in other men’s stories or in the published literature.
– The participant speaks to me and I listen as I focus on their perspectives and experiences = interestingly the key word that is wrong here is ‘participant’ because by this time it is the disembodied text talking to me, not the writer themselves. if I accept that texts are personally, culturally, socially, historically grounded snapshots, then I must accept that my only interaction is with the static words on the page and it is I who is giving it fluidity, new meaning and movement. I can only glean your perspective through inference. And I can only tune into your experiences via the filter of my own.
The rubric of this interpretive layer will need re-writing as a result of the interpretive interactions with the text.