20/20

The Scene: A group of 18-25 year-olds, engaged in relatively intellectual discussion. College classroom perhaps. An opinion is presented. There is general disagreement amongst the participants. Looking for a way out, the opinionated claims something along the lines of “Well you’re just looking at it through your worldview lens, your paradigm.”

This seems to be the favored way of disregarding an opinion we don’t like in academic settings, and armed with a bandolier of trite expressions we proceed to show how another’s thoughts are merely the product of the culture they are surrounded by. I find it interesting that this tactic is used to trivialize someone’s opinion in an age where the world places so much importance on individuals’ feelings. It’s commonly believed that just because there’s a thought in your head that it’s worth hearing about.

The popular view seems to be to rid oneself of any prejudicial paradigm and look at everything “objectively,” without the hindrance of those pesky lenses. Rubbish I say. Why would we attempt something like this, even if it were possible? Hans-Georg Gadamer states that it’s nonsense to even entertain the idea that you can achieve some kind of clean slate mentality when looking at literature, that your reading will always be affected to some degree by your culture.

So if we can’t get to a clean slate, what’s another option? Acquire as many pairs of lenses as possible. Be able to look at a text as though you grew up under Marxist thought, or during the Impressionist movement. Hand in hand with that is the necessity for discernment, when to use what lens. This to me is similar to Samuel Johnson’s idea of suspension of disbelief in the theatre. It’s not that you are totally sold on the idea of Formalism as a valid worldview, but you recognize that the most enjoyment/benefit will come from donning those glasses in this situation. We “suspend” our default lenses when we know that they won’t reveal as much as another.

Playing a little more with the analogy of lenses, what are they designed for? Improving one’s vision. Why would we try to strip ourselves of something that by its nature is designed to better our sight? We would be blinding ourselves. Granted, not every lens is good for every scenario. We shouldn’t try to study the stars with a microscope, even though it’s a lens. And we don’t want to use the wrong prescription for our close readings. But I’ve heard it said before that the possibility of misuse is poor excuse for not utilizing a tool.

Practically, I don’t think that you need to have an intimate knowledge of every lens under the sun. And likewise, some lenses are weightier in authority than others. But that’s for you to decide, because I’m heading to bed.