Blog Post 9 - A Final Look at Individuality
In true finale fashion, we bring the discussion this week unto ourselves. After delving into several topics revolving around the facets of interpretation, perhaps self-reflection is the hardest investigation to undertake. Looking in the mirror, I feel as though my ethic reflects experiences I have had and even my personality.
What beliefs do you bring?
First and foremost, I believe that every human has the capacity to both learn and want to learn about the natural world. The trick in modern interpretation is turning that capacity into a willingness, a willingness that is hopefully persistent throughout generations. How do I think this is best conducted? Well, I don’t think I have a perfect answer, if I did, I would solve a lot of problems beyond interpretation. However, I believe the most universally effective method is exposure to the world outdoors. Raw experiences in the untamed wilderness are understood beyond borders, languages, and emotions. Arguably, there is nothing that sparks the imagination more than the unknown of the natural realm. To best interpret, before you incorporate social programs and conservation groups, you need to build a base in pure experience for your audience.
I also believe that interpretation may not be the best way to bind an audience and nature. I don’t mean for that statement to come off as contrarian or definite, but I do believe that as flexible as interpretation is, there are more important things to translate to an audience. What I mean by this is that interpretation is largely a luxury, and it is important to recognize that. Indeed, interpretation is vital and can serve great purposes, but there are things that are more important, and I think that should be reflected in an interpretation.
What responsibilities do you have?
As a nature interpreter your responsibilities are numerous, but overall, you must ensure the interpretation does not indefinitely ruin the natural world for the audience. This may come off as a no-brainer, but I think one bad experience has devastating potential. Think in the shoes of a hesitant audience member for a moment. Despite your reservations, your family has convinced you to participate in a partially interactive nature course in a provincial park. The course is an objectively awful experience, your caution was proven to be warranted, and you wasted time and money. Do you think this disgruntled audience member will take the messages in the course to heart? Do you think they will think about related natural topics in a positive light? Do you think they will take their kids, arguably the more vital demographic, to an interpretation event any time soon? Interpretation has upside and it has downside, it is on you as the interpreter to make sure you leave guests with at least a neutral to positive experience.
As an interpreter you will be exposed to an innumerable variety of guests, it is on you, disregarding the difficulty, to cater to all audience members. Primarily, catering to all kinds of guests is professional, expected, and polite. But, if you don’t cater as best as possible you lose valuable potential listeners, listeners who may act. If you lose those who can understand what you preach, then why interpret in the first place? Catering can be done in many ways such as literal translations to building accommodations. Currently, the internet and modern technology offer a plethora of ways to connect and cater in an interpretation setting. To ignore the potential methods to connect with your audience is akin to ignoring the issues the environment faces.
Also, it goes without saying but safety is a sizable responsibility too!
What approaches are most suitable for you as an individual?
When it comes to what I look for in an interpretation, I would stress both levity and entertainment to the highest extent. Most people spend their day being lectured to, working an insufferable grind, or live under a kind of duress. Nature is their escape as it is mine, so make it an escape. I know that I will ALWAYS appreciate a joke mixed into a serious topic, a little levity can go a long way. A joke is especially appreciated if it comes from an unexpected place, like an interpretation. When something is entertaining it has special properties, such as instilling the desire to want to live the experience again as well as the ability to ruminate in the brain for extended periods of time. For me, I want to enjoy both the message and the presentation, if you can nail both of those aspects, I know that I will be satisfied.
Additionally, in the same vein as having an interpretation be entertaining, I prefer if an interpretation can avoid sounding pretentious. The last thing I want when spending my own time in participation is to be talked down to. The interpreter should understand that all audience members have an understanding of the natural world and that there is no one way to interpret. An interpreter that overextends boundaries to drill in a point is simply not interpreting. I enjoy nuance in my interpretation accompanied by a relaxed interpreter who plays with the ideas of audience members. Ideally, if you don’t suffocate me with material, and give me space to breathe, I am sure that I will absorb more of message.
Individuality in nature interpretation is a unique topic and raises some intriguing points about how best to interpret. It is in our nature as humans to project ourselves into everything that we do but is that a good or bad thing in nature interpretation. Who is to say? Throughout this course we have learned the intricacies of interpretation and one of the main takeaways I got is that interpretation is ever-changing. It truly is an evolving discipline that sees a highly variable number of approaches and definitions. Overall, I think the future of nature interpretation is a bright one. I’d like to say that writing these blogs has been a nice break from the typical slog of the semester and have been a genuine creative outlet; thanks for reading everyone!
Hello there! I agree with your points on individuality playing a role in how people see things and that there is no one right answer. If I have learned anything over this time is that everyone is capable of interpreting nature in their own way that is unique to them. However, I find it interesting that you think that as an interpreter we should not try to force what we think onto an audience. Which is very much true. With everyone being so different, it only makes sense that we are going to run into people that do not think the same way. Whether it be because of background on the subject or how they feel about it, we are in position to tell anyone how they should feel.
That all being said I still think that we as interpreters have a role in trying to tell the story in a multitude of ways. We can not change the basic facts of biology. Instead we change how we deliver it. Leaving it up to the audience in how they want to take it. I think a better way to word our responsibilities is to not focus on what needs to be told but how it is told and leaving it at that. We should adjust our ideas to best suit them but we should not change what is told. In fact, I think that the podcasts we did are a perfect example of this. The same topic and practically the same information but changing little things like music and wording to better suit the audience. Then just leaving it for those listening to take as they please.
As you said, everyone is unique. We have learned a lot to adapt to such but in the end, it is all about the personal connection that people form with nature that makes it all worthwhile.





















