If I recall correctly, in Is There a Text in this Class (1980), Fish argued that an author’s intended meaning is not the sole meaning of a text; rather, meanings are ascribed to a text by its readers.  Interpretation is a creative act, not a passive reception of the author’s meaning.  This does not mean, however, that texts cannot have stable meanings.  Because groups of people share ways of reading texts, interpretations of a text are constrained by the norms shared by communities of interpreters.

This strikes me as a useful theory of interpretation to apply to constitutional law, because it allows a justice to take into account not only the framers’ original intentions, but also the ways in which the Constitution was understood by the voters who ratified it, as well as the last two centuries of judicial interpretation.  In this op-ed, Fish seems to revert to the old idea that a text means simply what its author intended.  Can anyone familiar with Fish’s work help me out here?  Has he moved away from his reader response theory?

Also, Matthew, could link to any of the criticisms of Fish to which you allude?  Thank you.

Posted at July 20, 2005 3:21 PM in response to Fish on Intentionality