Just approved by the NAI Board of Directors after three years and hundreds of consultations.
The following are modified comments shared in the Interpretive Theme Writing Facebook group.
There are so many definitions of interpretation (see my blog called “Ending the Never-ending Battle to Define Interpretation”), what can we say of the newest on the block?
I would start with Don Enright’s critique which is largely on the money. This “definition” describes what we do but does not define what we are since every part of the definition applies basically to all professional communication and quite likely to education as well. In a sense, it’s like saying that we breathe, yes, all interpreters do breathe, this is very true, but breathing alone doesn’t distinguish us humans from other animals. If you read the new definition, then you still don’t know what interpreters do. Here’s Don’s critique, then I’ll continue. https://www.donenright.com/a-swing-and-a-miss-nais-new-definition-of-interpretation/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aug+5+2021
Don says that what the definition lacks is any reference to heritage. It is true that most interpreters, especially those in our circle, are heritage interpreters. But the communication discipline which is interpretation is larger than heritage. You can interpret government, micro-circuitry, racism, car repair, literally anything. The discipline is not based in any particular topic. And NAI isn’t called the National Association of Heritage Interpretation as InterpEurope, InterpatMX, or other heritage interpretation associations are called, NAI apparently is shooting for the entire discipline, not one (though very large) application of it. So I differ with Don Enright on this point, but remain in line largely with his others.
Don calls this a “missed opportunity” because the definition does not define what we do. I agree. But I wonder if rather than a missed opportunity, this definition reflects a more fundamental ambiguity about what we as heritage interpreters do and are. If after 3 years and 100s of consultations NAI couldn’t nail it, perhaps it isn’t nailable. Perhaps there are still fundamental contradictions in our very nature. This might account for why so many people do not know what interpretation is or confuse it with other meanings of the word. Maybe it accounts for why so many people still don’t understand and use themes in any systematic way. Why so many people don’t have a good grasp on the psychology behind it or that what people in the field are trying to do is so broad that it does not lend itself to how we normally define a professional discipline. Or why so many different professionals have interest in interpretation.
Clearly understood professions include teachers, educators, rangers, naturalists, filmmakers, writers, artists, etc. Each of these uses interpretation, but likely does not self-identify first as interpreters. Interpretation is more a tool in this sense than a discipline. Some people actually do have job descriptions that say “interpreter” but I’m guessing that would be the minority of NAI members (certainly doesn’t include me). NAI in this sense isn’t so much a professional organization as a skill building organization of a skill that so many of us love and value. But that also does not define a professional discipline.
So for now the definition is much improved over the old one (see my blogs, “7 ‘Deadly’ Critiques of NAI’s Definition of ‘Interpretation’” and “Part 2 of 2: My New Definition of Interpretation!” ), and the deeper questions about whether interpretation is a skillset or a profession and what it ultimately should be trying to achieve remain without consensus agreement.
And in case you didn’t read the last blog above, my definition in 2019 was
“Heritage interpretation is purposeful communication that promotes people’s stewardship of natural and cultural heritage through immersion in experience opportunities that deepen their appreciation of the human condition and universe.”
