A Full TOK Essay on Good & Bad Interpretations — across Arts & Human Sciences

TOK Essay Example 8

Interpretation creates disputes because the explanations or opinions of what something means could be widely differing. The rules about interpretations are vague and they lack a linear approach. Both, good and bad, are subjective. Therefore, good and bad interpretations can coexist despite statistical evidence, and significant testing and may have unfortunate consequences because they are not straightforward.

Art is quite a diverse discipline and due to its methods of interpretation, there are very often dissimilarities yet fruitful discussions whereas human science is a matter of humans, their beliefs, and perspectives. In art, good and bad interpretation lies in culture, values, role of critics, and expertise however human science rests on the values we hold and the culture we are raised in.

Art has a function and its social character plays an important role because art is a strong medium to bring about social change. Human science is complex and faces multicultural responsibilities which are solved through research persuasion on humans. What remains interesting to explore is that humans share basic tenets across all species and may have little room for good and bad interpretations as against arts as diverse interpretation are deemed obvious.

To explore good and bad interpretations in human science, it is important to know the beliefs and interests of human scientists and to what extent they influence conclusions?

Beliefs, interests & interpretation in the human sciences

Sex robots — good and bad interpretations

Human scientists evolve their knowledge based on interests that are most intriguing. The development of sex robots presents significant potential in demystifying humans’ fantasies. The traditional belief that sexual pleasures can only be among men and women has been dissolved. It is believed that typical male hegemony has been an intrusive part of dualism where women’s role has always been short-sighted and neglected.

The interpretation of robots for sex relies on Artificial Intelligence which is programmed to be an ever-ready obedient servant that offers unwarranted willingness for entanglements^[1].

Implications can be drawn regarding the care that sex robots could offer to disabled and elderly people who lack physical and emotional touch, intimacy, and sexual pleasure. The explanation about the good interpretation rests on the argument that sex robots could empower sexual rights among some ignored members of society^[2]. Much literature reflects the therapeutic use of robots to address sex-related anxiety as sex robots are capable of treating sexual dysfunctions and limiting sex offenders, thereby promoting safer sex. Many human scientists profess that the joys of life must be equitable. Perhaps, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory conveys satisfaction of similar basic needs at the bottom of the triangle^[3].

Contrarily, sex robots have been subject to bad interpretations as well, due to AI that poses a growing psychological and moral threat to individuals and society. Bad interpretations about technology escape its power to address bigger issues as many find it embarrassing to investigate sex robots^[4]. Predominately, using machines and tools for sexual pleasures has always existed however not recognized. Therefore, accepting machines as a companion for life has many interpretations.

Robots can protest too if they don’t feel like having sex causing behavioral issues thereby accusing humans as rapists. However, frequent interactions in bed can help in knowing likes and dislikes^[5]. Unfortunately, problematic relationships in actual life can push away the equation with robots as well, as robots might experience the same too due to algorithms designed. Many psychologists therefore interpret them unhealthily.

Sex is a matter of privacy and its public discussion and its exhibition, sometimes make it awkward to interpret it in a good or bad way based on values and cultures. As it can not be denied that sex is an overrated commodity in many cultures, its interpretation varies too.

Consider the sex toy market which is booming in a few countries, but in many cultures, sex toys are not looked upon as a healthy substitute. Surprisingly, the oldest known Dildo clocks back to 28,000 years. Sex toys as a technology harness pleasure, however, their use can be interpreted as character assassins in a few cultures^[6].

Interpretation means competing ideologies — both good and bad interpretations coexist for a single subject, shaped by the beliefs and interests of the knower.

The false advertising about sex toys can be blamed for the bad interpretations in recent times, however, manipulators have been intended for medical use including a variety of vibrators. The transition of interpretation from good to bad and then good again happened through the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, when sex-positive experts and enthusiasts began to sell adult toys. Finally by the 21st century, now, the interpretation of sex toys begins with unprecedented openness^[7].

The distinguished interpretation is also the result of social media, the growing openness of pre-marital sex, the LGBTQ community, and the advent of the internet.

Transgender perspectives — ethics & moral dilemmas

Similar knowledge can be explored regarding the good and bad interpretations of perspectives about transgenders and their acceptance. Human scientists face ethical dilemmas while observing human behavior because there are moral implications of possessing knowledge about them. It is important to know what those moral impacts are.

The good and bad interpretations can be a matter of religious beliefs. Christians associate gender back to the beginning. For example, for them God created humankind in his image, men and women as per Genesis 1, which refers to the creation of opposites – land and sea & day and night. However, God’s creation also exists in the spectrum because, between day and night, there is dawn and dusk. The interpretation of Genesis 1 helps Christians to identify that not everything fits into a binary system and God’s creation can exist in transgenders and non-binary people when it comes to bodies, experiences, personalities, and beliefs. This was interpreted badly only to refer to Genesis 2 which gives us a different perspective on the creation story. Genesis is referred to as a good interpretation where gender complementarity asserts that different genders were created to have strict societal roles^[8].

It must be noted that transgenders have always existed in different cultures and they often face discrimination causing stress and oppression by other people This means sin is at play in its oppressiveness, specifically the way we treat each other while we completely interpret someone’s existence in a bad way.

The interpretation of transgenders is often due to inadequate knowledge about them, despite the prevalent civilized humanity. Therefore, there is a bad interpretation due to attitudes that further transpire from one generation to another. Inadequate knowledge, as said earlier, can influence interpretations because false and baseless notions can continue to disallow a bad interpretation into a good one. It is worth noting that transgender males have contributed hugely as social investments among hunter-gatherer tribes to sustain transgender orientation in modern societies. Further, good interpretations about transgenders have been professed by a Spanish psycho-biologist Antonio Guillamon who claims differences in brain anatomy in transgenders from that of biological males and females^[9]. Transgender identity has been labeled as a birth defect abnormality variance and a mental disorder, claiming that something is wrong with them^[10].

The good and bad interpretation of transgender community is also a matter of self-confidence because over a period of time. Some courageous members have openly accepted their gender rather than hiding it. This has predominantly transferred the perspective about them in many countries but not all. Below is an example of the UK’s section 28.

A different view on moral obligations of what we possess knowledge about human behavior can be scrutinized from the lens of law.

In 1988, thousands of gays and lesbians demanded equality opposing section 28, which prohibited local authorities and schools from funding that was much needed for gay and lesbian initiatives. The law was wrongly interpreted as claimed by Margaret Thatcher, especially when the gay community was struggling to cope. However, some say that it was a callous attempt to suppress an already marginalized group^[11].

Section 28 was interpreted bad enough that people were forbidden from stocking libraries with literature that contained lesbian or gay themes. Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay^[12]. Such a bad interpretation led to Section 28 being called a homophobic law.

It implied that there were hate crimes and issues related to employment among the gay community. In fact, the protest was interpreted as completely illegal despite a peaceful demonstration. It is a backward step for tolerance and inclusivity and exhibited a pivotal role in bullying and demonizing LGBTQ. Using the law to disapprove a portion of a community is a perfect platform to interpret such sensitive issues which appear to be bad because after all people obey and respect the law for the betterment of society. Such implication creates moral obligations on the members of the society because the whole community is under threat.

Contrarily, many perspectives on transgender rights came up. The British Social Attitudes Survey (2017) found that a majority of the British public was supportive of transgender people, with women more likely to be in favor of trans rights than men. Suzan Moore interpreted transgender rights through a very narrow assessment that silently endorses the notion that all trans women will always be men and must therefore always be excluded from places that are open only to the essentialist conflation of sex and gender, only real female^[13].

Culture, critics & interpretation in the arts

Why good and bad interpretation coexist

On the other hand, the interpretation of art is a matter of culture, values, and the art itself. The good and bad interpretation is also dependent on time and the societal perspective. The meaning of art is connected to life. Art inspires thinking and has the potential to transform understanding. The interpretation matters because it is unwise to rely on a single way of knowing art. The multi-faceted audience recognizes art through a distinguished discourse. In literature, interpretation should never tell us what we see, think, or feel. Therefore, good interpretation is an outcome of good writing^[14].

It is also argued that the interpretation of art in a lecture room versus a public gallery can have differences and similarities. It was identified and argued that studying a work of art in person as compared to the role of narrative and story-telling as an interpretative tool has influenced good and bad interpretations.

The good and bad interpretations also sometimes depend on the research work as it involves a poll of the audience and their perspective on art collection^[15]. The interpretations are perhaps inequitable. The artists feel that poor judgment by art critics is all the better because bad interpretations place the artists’ on a higher transactional value due to their unique theme^[16].

Duchamp’s Fountain — reframing bad into good

Marcel Duchamp in April 1917, made a controversial debut and changed the way art can be interpreted. Duchamp exhibited a urinal to widely publicise society’s open-mindedness. However, it was rejected on the grounds of aesthetic crudity. His argument rests on the unwillingness to sign his name and not to take credit for the artwork. His interpretation of the art was to resolve the distance between the maker and the made. The bad interpretation turned into the good as for the first time the significance of a work of art was detached from the artist’s role in making it^[17].

Fountain as an art demonstrated its ability to skirt the scrutiny and prejudices of the eye to engage the mind rather than philosophical discussions. Duchamp’s idea was to make the art world accept that artworks could be ready-made or everyday commercial objects. The good versus bad interpretation can be witnessed as Duchamp picks an ordinary article from life to let the audience deliberately ignore its utility and encourages them to create a new thought for that object, thereby giving it a title, R. Mutt. Basically, removing the fountain from the cluttered modern art must encourage society to remove subsequent works by other artists^[18].

When the substance becomes the statement

Another artist, Piero Manzoni, canned his own fecal matter and named the final product as ‘Artist’s Shit’ during the 1960s. Another contemporary artist, Chris Olili, made various paintings from elephant dung. Similar art was displayed in the California Bay area that was exhibited in a gallery show called “I Poop You”. The interpretation of art can be good and bad, but acknowledging the idea is perhaps the need to interpret not just in two ways but in multiple ways. In the arts, expanding consideration of an artist’s substance has been viewed as something that has serious implications. While poop doesn’t add value to creative work, an artist’s ability to use it deserves attention and respect. For some artists, some poop is worthy of gold. Therefore, the good and bad interpretations have coexisted^[19].

Conclusion

It can be concluded that interpretation means competing ideologies, and both good and interpretations coexist for a single topic/subject in discussion.

In human science, good and bad interpretations can have an oscillating effect due to varied belief systems and interests. A good interpretation of sex robots can be formed due to the ability of the technology to create a positive outcome in terms of utility while a bad interpretation also coexists due to cultural values. Similarly, the good and bad interpretation is a matter of ethical dilemma. The moral implications of judging the transgender community rely on clarifications in the Bible. However, transgenders have been victims of the ruthless thinking of the law creators. Not only this, the ethical stance on sex toys in modern times has been interpreted badly, whereas, the use of sex toys can be deemed as a good interpretation during older times.

In arts, interpretation is a wider band than just good and bad. The artist’s thinking and the audience’s reactions play a pivotal role. After reviewing Marcel Duchamp’s art, it can be said that assessing art narrowly can lead to bad interpretation, and acknowledging the viewpoint of the artist by switching the acceptability of ideas can lead to good interpretation. A similar viewpoint about the interpretation of art can be seen while discussing the poop art. Therefore, distinguishing between good and bad interpretation is possible in both, human science and arts, through various elements of the areas of knowledge.

Bibliography

1. ResearchGate — New Materialist Feminist Perspectives on Sex Robots
2. De Gruyter — Paladyn Journal of Behavioral Robotics (2020)
3. Verywell Mind — What is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?
4. BBC News — Sex robots: Science, Environment & Society
5. BBC News — Sex robots and human interaction
6. Daily Mail — The sex toys dating back 28,000 years
7. All That’s Interesting — History of Sex Toys
8. HRC — What Does the Bible Say About Transgender People?
9. ResearchGate — A Different Perspective on Transgender (Guillamon)
10. Believe Out Loud — God Made Me Transgender
11. The Guardian — Section 28 protesters 30 years on
12. The Independent — Section 28 explained
13. The Guardian — Differing perspectives on transgender rights
14. The Guardian — Interpretation matters: art galleries and text
15. University of Birmingham — Perspectives on Art Interpretation
16. Scroll.in — Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain: how a reject became the toast of the art world
17. BBC Culture — The urinal that changed how we think
18. The Conversation — The Essential Duchamp: an exotic radical
19. Global Citizen — This Art Is Shit, Literally