The Conflict of Interpretations and the Limits of Pluralism Shivani Reddy

-Paul B. Armstrong 20151140

(BBA LLB-B)
Response Paper

Interpretation parts as a whole

Armstrong, the author states various methods of interpretation, beginning with the method of
interpretation of parts as a whole. The author states that while interpreting any substance it has
to be interpreted as parts, so that it makes a complete sense as a whole. The author calls this
method as hermeneutic circle and says that, “The classic formulation of the hermeneutic circle
holds that we can only comprehend the details of a work by projecting a sense of the whole,
just as, conversely, we can only achieve a view of the whole by working through its parts”.
Then the author shifts to the practical implicitly of the said method. He points that interpretation
is basically guess work and this method of interpretation may result in wrong interpretation, as
if the interpretation parts do not make sense in togetherness then the whole method fails. This
interpretation occurs in real life while interpretation of statutes as to where and when many
sections of an Act (by interpretation of court) are violative of any fundamental right or a parent
statute, then due to the interpretation of these provisions the whole act becomes operative in a
systematic manner.

Interpretation based on trial and error

Armstrong, points out that interpretation is basically guess work by the interpreter and the more
he becomes experienced in interpreting he realises that he cannot escape trial and error. This is
seen with the judicial interpretation, for example, the right to privacy in Article 211 has been
interpreted multiple times during the course of supreme courts history starting from the case of
Karak Singh2 to Puttaswamy3. The court shifted from its narrow approach towards privacy to
a broader approach of it by declaring it as a fundamental right. Also, this was seen in many
socio economic jurisprudence and court decisions in the light of Enviroment jurisprudence
where one method is not right the court moves to another method. For example, shift from
traditional principle of strict liability to absolute liability.

Interpretation belief more fundamental than hypothesis

The court says that belief plays an important role in how the interpretation is done. Armstrong
gives example by quoting Marx and structuralism. Historically, belief has played an important
role in interpreting works. Ancient works and literature have been transformed and interpreted
according to the school of thought. Same has been seen in various philosophical interpretation
of the meaning of life and things revolving around life. Politically a leftist judge would interpret
in light of left ideologies and a rightist judge may always incline towards its ideology. This is
also prevalent in USA were judges are chosen based on their ideology as Democrats or
republican. John Rawls had pointed that while interpreting a judge should wear a veil of
ignorance and ignore all the outside influence which may create biases in his mind while

1
The Constitution of India. Eastern Book Co., 2012.
2
Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1)
332
3
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018
The Conflict of Interpretations and the Limits of Pluralism Shivani Reddy
-Paul B. Armstrong 20151140
(BBA LLB-B)
interpreting a law. This is also in line with the realist school of jurisprudence which says that
the type of decision depends on the minds of the judge. Realist school is sort of contemporary
type of school of thought on jurisprudence and rejects all the traditional school of thoughts and
focuses more on the psychology of judge, creating more impact on the type of judgement rather
than the points and facts foot forth in front of him. This is also what we generally see practically
in life for example, A capitalist judge in reality tends to favour industrial approach whereas a
communist judge may favour for the rights of the workman.

Draw backs of presupposition

Armstrong is of the opinion that, if we interpret some thing while already keeping in our mind
prior bias it would be unfair for the subject being interpreted. This is very true as presupposition
in our minds may create biases and we cannot look into the subject from all the angles. This is
in accordance with the John Rawls veil of ignorance that says, while interpreting you are behind
a veil and Behind this ‘veil’, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your
position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. You
have to be a neutral person. Presupposition blocks our mind and we are not able to approach
the issue through all angles. But Armstrong also agrees that presupposition tends to happen and
we stick to the particular type of thought. This becomes more intense when we presuppose with
a radical mind set and not in mood to change our minds on that subject. The author says that
there may be some common things in multitude of interpretations as it is from a same source.
The thinking of author is right but it has problem that scope of interpretation is very wide and
seeking a common ground since it is from the same source is difficult.

The author says that there are still chances of presuppositions and disagreement between two
categories of people, and gives an example of literary interpreters and categorised them as New
Critic and Phenologists he says, “For the New Critic, the literary work is a self-sufficient
structure of ‘norms that an interpretation may approximate but cannot fully realize’. For the
phenomenologist, the work is not so much an objective structure as a meeting of subjectivities
and the consciousness of the reader bringing to life authorial acts of consciousness, that lie
dormant in the black marks preserving them”. Further in the article, Armstrong points out to
find out a middle ground on the disagreement between the different thoughts and bring a
interpretation based on that. The task of bring interpretation based on disagreement in real life
is seen in the mediation or arbitration process where the mediator or arbitrator attempts to
interpret the clause in a way and bring out solution which can be viable for both the sides.

The author says that there are many problems while reaching with common grounds on
disagreement like a radical mindset. If a person has a radical mindset he may not change his
mind and attempt to reach to an agreement. since this person is in a blurred space with pre-set
notions creating an undue bias while arriving at a conclusion. Although we may attempt to
interpret to bring an agreement to be upheld by all, but we may cannot say that that agreement
is the ultimate truth. This agreement faces glitches, but the parties internalise the fact that its
being pronounced by an authorised person that they collectively authorised his position.