On Reading Well

Each one of us carries a world within us and that world is constituted of our experiences, the sum of which is a series of exchanges between the individual and others like, the community, the family, the local, the international, the media and all other small and large systems around us. Therefore, each one of us sees the world as we have been taught via our various interactions (in some cases we unlearn a particular way of seeing based on our personal motivations). The idea of me is thus created both by and for us. So, for example, the farmer (as is the case in some parts of the world) who knows only the rural setting and has no concept of the urban world or its technologies, sees the world in grain and grass and doesn’t know what a car looks like or what the word means. Language is therefore relevant insofar as it gives meaning to the world around us.

In Alexandra Horowitz’s On Looking: A Walker’s Guide To The Art of Observation, the writer embarks on a series of 11 walks with experts, an architect, a psychologist, a botanist and others, as a means of observing familiar spaces through the eyes of each specialist.

It is an investigation on paying attention.

But a part of that ability to observe is also dependent on what one is trained to see.

Therefore, the botanist will see things in the natural landscape which his profession has trained him to and which we all may have been passing by, day after day, without noticing or simply regarded as a weed, while the architect will see patterns in the simple street that we walk each day, noting for you a wrought iron gate done in the tradition of such and such a culture or brickwork done in the British style.

But that same architect may pass by the weed and never see it there.

It is a natural human tendency to zoom in on things that are relevant to us while skimming over others.

We listen and very often read in this particular way as well. In local parlance, we say, “if the corn fall in your garden you pick it up”.

In response to what I might consider some friendly criticism of the column on school violence two weeks ago, while I have read and heard feedback on some of the criticisms, what was most intriguing was the way in which the society reads. (This is my reading of the responses with the lens with which I have been trained).

One reader felt disappointed at my language for it didn’t sound like me. Another was disappointed by what she considered my scorn at the elderly and felt that I provided recommendations that the ministry already had in place.

Interestingly, one critic noted that I provided no recommendations.

And so, we have a few instances of ways of reading the text. Neither was wrong. Neither was right.

They were simply different ways of reading (and seeing) complete with the burden of emotions and expectations that we all carry on our backs. Recognizing this in oneself is useful.

Too often we have had governments come and go, each dispensing with policies of the previous regime, or re-presenting some to the nation as new though in fact they may be couched simply in some new terminology. Because each government serves some agenda or the other, we are saddled with these inconsistent structures. And we the people have also adopted such an attitude (this is a worldwide phenomenon so it doesn’t only apply here) - one of winning the argument - that it blinds us from seeing and thereby denies us true freedom. However, it is, in my little experience, the ability to stand outside of oneself and reflect on the greater common good that encourages self-conf i d e n c e and provides the base for more prog r e s s i v e t h o u g h t and governance.