Cubism turned the world of art upside-down and inside out. Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, and other cubists portrayed their subjects simultaneously from many different perspectives in order to bring out the subject's essence. The resulting compositions often appear grotesque and distorted because our own mental representations are far more advanced. Instead of the composite, three-dimensional image that our mind could create if we viewed the subject, we are presented with a fragmented, two-dimensional image. Although cubist art does not compare to our mental representations, it does have much to offer. Cubism represents the essence of a subject as seen by the artist and it creates a more complete idea of the subject than other artistic methods could achieve. At first cubists were criticized for abandoning traditional methods of depiction; however, many critics came to appreciate the multi-faceted art. The field of theory could benefit greatly from adopting a cubist approach to analyzing theory.

The true measure of any theory is its ability to withstand multiple perspectives. Many theories today are one-dimensional--where a theory is proposed within a very rigid framework of conditions. When the theory is viewed from a different angle, it falls apart. For instance, some theories work well on paper, but fail when applied in the workplace. A good theory can withstand a cubist analysis and only come out stronger. That is to say, sometimes viewing a theory from a different angle can add greater depth to that theory.

I analyzed the theory of interpretive communities proposed by Stanley Fish using a cubist approach. For the most part, Fish's argument held strong. Consideration of his theory from many angles yielded a few questions that need to be answered: (1) What happens when an individual is a part of more than one interpretive community? (2) Does the individual or the collective have ultimate authority? (3) Who defines an interpretive community? and (4) Does an interpretive community ever cease to exist? All of these questions are worthy of further study; however, I have chosen to focus only the first question because of the essential role technical communicators play.

When multiple interpretive communities are involved, technical communicators have a responsibility to clarify which interpretive community should be activated. People identify which interpretive community they belong to at any given instant according to a personal belief hierarchy, structural clues, and power relationships. Technical communicators can use rhetoric to single out one, or several, interpretive communities. This identification process helps technical communicators transmit information more clearly at the same time that they are helping the audience gain better understanding.

A Brief History of Interpretive Communities

It has been 22 years since Stanley Fish popularized the theory of interpretive communities in his book Is There a Text in this Class? In that time, the theory has been misrepresented and misused innumerable times. Therefore, before I begin to build onto Fish's theory, I need to clear away two decades of often-extraneous interpretation . Perhaps the most succinct method of achieving this is to briefly revisit the original theory instead of losing focus trying to rectify misguided efforts. According to Thomas S. Kuhn, "crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories" (77). The crisis that precipitated Fish's theory was a dilemma over interpretive authority.

Communication theorists debated the issue of interpretive authority for years. Some people thought that the text held the title of supreme interpretive authority, while others thought that title belonged to the reader. However, neither camp could explain how there could be both convergent and divergent interpretations of the same text (Fish, Naturally 141). If the author of a piece had embedded an absolute interpretation within his or her text, how could people have different interpretations of that text? On the other hand, if each reader interprets a text independently, incorporating his or her own unique history into the interpretation of the text, how is it possible that some people reach the same interpretation? Stanley Fish proposed the theory of interpretive communities as a solution to this dilemma.

The concept of interpretive communities resolved the issues in the debate because it enclosed both the reader and the text within a single entity. People within an interpretive community should interpret a text similarly, while there may still be disagreement on interpretations between interpretive communities. "In this new vision both texts and readers lose the independence that would be necessary for either of them to claim the honor of being the source of interpretive authority" (Fish, Naturally 142). According to Fish, an interpretive community is a "point of view or way of organizing experience that share[s] individuals" (Naturally 141). In Fish's theory, it is possible for a writer to address segments of the audience by singling out different interpretive communities.

The concept of interpretive communities has been successfully adopted, in part, because it gives great power to authors. Unlike previous theories where authors trying to connect with the audience had to consider the audience as a group of countless individuals or a single collective, this theory allows authors to break down the audience into workable segments. The successful incorporation of the theory of interpretive communities into a variety of disciplines denotes the quality of Fish's theory. In particular, the fields of education and theology have both adopted the theory more or less "as is." Conversely, fields such as technical communication have adopted a distinct version of the theory, discourse communities, where the communities are divided by profession (Zappen 4). Any discipline that accepts the theory of interpretive communities has to realize that there is no absolute reality, but instead a myriad of realities equal to the number of communities.

Postmodernism, Anti-Formalism and the Rejection of Window Pane Theory

Postmodernism refuses to privilege any one perspective, and recognizes only difference, never inequality, only fragments, never conflict.
Elizabeth Wilson, author

The world is much simpler if there is a single, absolute reality. Since there is only one true reality, complete understanding can be achieved by clarifying communication. In this world, technical communicators focus on clarity, not rhetoric. Since reality is absolute, they do not need to interpret or analyze it. Communication can be reduced to a series of mechanical rules imposed to achieve clarity. Proponents of the single reality theory

presuppose what has been called the "windowpane theory of language":

the notion that language provides a view out onto the real world, a view which may be clear or obfuscated. If language is clear, then we see reality accurately (Miller 612).

Supporters of this theory often extol the virtues of plain style.

Plain style was originally developed in the seventeenth century in reaction to the ornate and ostentatious language of the day (Whitburn et al. 351). While appropriate in the seventeenth century, plain style is limiting today. Plain style focuses entirely on the ideal of clarity--"rhetorical devices were not to be an obstruction between observation and description" (Whitburn et al. 351). Stripping writers of all rhetorical devices leaves them without adequate resources to explain complex material to a non-expert audience (Whitburn et al. 353). Dismissing the theory of a single reality allows rhetoric to be reintroduced as a vital part of technical communication.

The acceptance of multiple versions of reality lies at the heart of postmodernism and anti-formalism. Many scholars have rejected these theories because multiple versions of reality are overwhelming and seem to imply disintegration into chaos (Fish, Naturally Introduction). If "there is no such thing as literal meaning," as Fish claims (Naturally 4), then how can anyone communicate? These theories seems to imply that everyone can interpret the communication in a different manner, so there can be no clear communication and meaning is lost. Fortunately, this situation only occurs in the extreme theoretical world. In reality, there are not an infinite number of interpretations. In fact, Fish's theory of interpretive communities poses one explanation for the finite number of interpretations. Many people see postmodernism and anti-formalism as negatives; however, the theories they espouse present an ideal opportunity for technical communicators. No longer relegated to the perfunctory role of establishing clarity through the elimination of rhetoric, technical communicators may assume a prominent role in shaping the version of reality that is portrayed.

Educated in the plain style, some people may be hesitant to accept the use of rhetoric because they feel it is antithetical to clarity. In Carolyn Miller's article "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing" she presents an argument for the reestablishment of rhetoric and other traditionally humanistic devices in technical writing to enhance clarity. Miller claims that technical writing has been corrupted by a dated, positivist attitude that originally inspired plain style. "Put simply, positivism is the conviction that sensory data are the only permissible basis for knowledge" (612). Under positivism, technical writing must be objective, rhetoric-free, and above all clear. However, Miller says that: "clarity is a more elusive and less useful criterion than [writers] have believed" (614). She argues that the "clarity" stressed in the current technical writing manuals assumes that there is only one "clear" reality. Miller believes that there are many versions of reality, but that the reality people choose to accept is created by "communal assent" (615). In this case, "certainty is found not in isolated observation of nature or in logical procedure but in the widest agreement with other people" (616). If clarity is viewed in the context of multiple realities, it becomes clear that rhetoric, or persuasive language, is essential to clearly establish one dominant version of reality.

If technical communicators choose to accept this persuasive role, they have a duty to assume the responsibilities that go along with it. Since they are shaping the presentation of reality, technical communicators must not purposely mislead people. They need to be aware of the role they are playing and the power they have to influence others. Technical communicators have a duty to present their version of reality with caveats when necessary. Rhetorical tools should not be used to manipulate the audience or endanger them in any manner. These tools should be used with the best interest of the audience in mind.

Hierarchy of Interpretive Communities

The role of persuasion becomes particularly important when multiple interpretive communities are considered. While he responds to many critiques in his collection of essays, Doing What Comes Naturally, Fish does not address the issue of multiple interpretive communities head on. Instead he uses the idea of a belief system to demonstrate the fluidity of his theory.

Beliefs are not all held at the same level or operative at the same time. Beliefs, if I may use a metaphor, are nested, and on occasion they may affect and even alter one another and so alter the entire system or network they comprise. (Naturally 146)

In Fish's theory, power is particularly important. He uses the authority in a professor-student relationship to demonstrate that it is easier for a professor to alter the belief system of a student than vice versa (Naturally 145-6). However, Fish's idea of power does not fully explain what happens when multiple interpretive communities intersect on a single individual.

Consider Carol; she belongs to the following interpretive communities (listed in no particular order): baseball fan, poet, feminist, Native American, mother, woman, wife, and financial consultant. How does Carol identify which community she is in at a particular moment? Is it possible for her to be in two communities at the same moment? Fish's idea of power does play a significant role. For instance, in a particular work situation, Carol may initially relate to a problem as a feminist rather than a financial consultant. However, her desire to keep her job by maintaining the company's position may cause her to reassess the situation. The idea a power-driven belief system has the most relevance in work situations. Fish's theory does not explain how Carol identifies her predominant interpretive community in a situation where Carol has the power, or where power is shared equally among peers. I believe that in most cases, individuals identify which interpretive community they belong in based on both a personal belief hierarchy and structural clues.

Everyone has an internal representation of his or her hierarchy of beliefs. Unfortunately, the term hierarchy implies a rigidity that is not quite true. Most belief systems are maintained in a semi-permanent manner, but they are subject to change. What an individual places atop the hierarchy at age 20 may change by age 40. However, changes to the belief system usually take places at a slow enough pace that they can assume a relatively permanent hierarchical structure. This idea of a belief hierarchy is further complicated by the idea of structural clues.

People may have multiple belief hierarchies for different settings. In Carol's case, she may use a different hierarchy for work, home, and "other." Usually, individuals use structural clues to identify which hierarchy they should consider. In some rare instances, an individual may have a supreme hierarchy that may supercede others. This takes the form of a moral code. Beliefs about right and wrong can often trump normal hierarchies. Using Carol as an example, she usually employs a hierarchy of beliefs at work that allows her to live within her moral code and maintain the company ideals. However, if Carol believes that the company is doing something illegal, she may forgo her belief in protecting the company in favor of maintaining her moral values. Understanding the complexity of conflicting interpretive communities can help technical communicators analyze rhetorical situations better.

How to Influence People

Technical communicators should use their knowledge about interpretive communities to communicate better. Understanding how people use structural clues, allows technical communicators to embed such clues in documents to help readers identify with a particular interpretive community. Many theorists have discussed ways in which to accomplish this feat.

In "Clarity in Context: Rethinking Misunderstanding" Barbara Schneider's ideas about context exemplify the type of structural clues readers respond to in order to identify interpretive communities. Schneider explains how clarifying context can also clarify the message and reduce misunderstanding. Since she believes context is dynamic, Schneider recommends reestablishing context throughout the communication process. She suggests that strategic talk, such as paraphrasing, formulations, questions and answers, examples, and stories, are good methods for creating a shared context between the writer and the reader. Schneider believes "that the key to reducing misunderstanding is ensuring that [the speaker/writer] share a context for understanding with listeners or readers. In particular, a shared context for understanding is a way to achieve clarity, the most valued characteristic of technical communication" (210).

Another theorist, Michael Calvin McGee, claims that rhetorical pieces of communication are made up entirely of structural clues. "Rhetors make discourses from scraps and pieces of evidence" (McGee 279). The resulting communication "is in fact a dense reconstruction of all the bits of other discourses from which it was made. It is fashioned from 'fragments' (McGee 279). Aden et al. further clarify the nature of these structural clues: "Since these fragments of discourse have been previously circulated within a culture, individuals recognize particular bits and fashion an interpretation of the text" (Aden et al. electronic text). Aden et al. continue with this idea to explain how interpretive communities are formed.

Stanley Fish's theory of interpretive communities is able to withstand a cubist analysis. Analyzing the theory from multiple perspectives did not yield any contrary information, only theory that had not been fully taken to completion. For instance, the idea of multiple interpretive communities goes beyond Fish's concept of power struggles and encompasses ideas of personal belief hierarchies and structural identification as well. Technical communicators can achieve much by utilizing the theory of interpretive communities with key emendations. Technical communicators once again are empowered with the rhetoric to explain and identify reality for their audiences.

Works Cited

Aden, Roger C., et al. "'Dreams are Born on Places Like This': The Process of Interpretive Community Formation at the Field of Dreams Site." Communication Quarterly 43 (1995): electronic text.

The Columbia World of Quotations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. www.bartleby.com/66/ (Elizabeth Wilson Quote). [Dec. 17, 2002].

Fish, Stanley. Doing What Comes Naturally. Durham and London: Duke Univ. Press, 1989 (pp. 1, 37, et passim).

--. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge, Mass., 1980.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Preface, 1-22, and 77-91.

McGee, Michael Calvin. "Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture." Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): 274-289.

Miller, Carolyn R. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English 40 (1979): 610-17.

Schneider, Barbara. "Clarity in Context: Rethinking Misunderstanding." Technical Communication 49 (2002): 210-218.

Whitburn, Merrill D., et al. "The Plain Style in Scientific and Technical Writing." Journal of Technical and Communication 8 (1978): 349-58.

Zappen, James P. "The Discourse Community in Scientific and Technical Communication: Institutional and Social Views." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 19 (1988): 1-11.