CARE ABOUT... CARE FOR
What do you hope your audiences will care about? Be specific.
What Interpretation Does
Interpretation helps audiences think and feel differently. It does not provide answers, it poses questions. It does not teach, it offers opportunities. Interpretation does not educate, it provokes increasingly sophisticated appreciation, understanding, and a more generous perspective toward the multiple meanings of a given place. Interpretation does not tell people how it is, it reveals personal significance. Interpretation strives to establish a relationship of care.
Tanaka Shozo, an eminent Nineteenth Century Japanese statesman and conservationist stated it well. "The care of rivers is not a question of rivers, but of the human heart." In one sense, Shozo uses the word care in terms of care for. This is the work of conservation professionals like interpreters, resource managers, law enforcement personal, and others, who care for the resource in tangible ways.
But Shozo suggests that care is not exclusive to the tangible resource, rather it is "of the human heart." In this way, Shozo uses the word in terms of care about. How can anyone come to support care for the tangible resource unless they first come to care about the resource?
He describes interpretation's desired outcome. Interpreters facilitate connections between the interests of the visitor and the meanings of the resource by providing opportunities for personal emotional and intellectual connections.
When it works, the result is an elevated level of care about the resource. Audience members, according to the circumstances of their lives, may or may not actively participate in the care for the resource. Their caring may take a long time and may manifest in another location. But interpreters make stewardship possible. Interpretation assists the first step: caring about.
An Enduring Failure
David L. Larsen, National Park Service
Tanaka Shozo is virtually unknown in the western world. There's only one biography about him in English.  Yet even if the roughest outline of his life is accurate, Shozo's devotion and behavior amaze. From a country seemingly far away and a time long ago, Tanaka Shozo's issues and actions are, for many today. surprisingly relevant, and his words remarkably pertinent.
He was a politician and an idealist. Born a peasant in 1841, he served in various local positions until Japan adopted a written constitution. In 1891, Shozo was elected to the national parliament. Kenneth Strong, his biographer, suggests that at this point in his life, Shozo believed deeply in three things, "... the efficacy of representative justice, the importance of a formal constitution to underwrite those institutions, and the benevolence of the Emperor." 
Shozo wanted the government to protect the people of the Shimotsuke Plain and the River Waterase. In the early 1880s, the Ashio copper mining industry began a massive operation in the Nasu Mountains. The ecological effect was devastating. The mines denuded the mountain's forests and dumped ore waste into ravines and streams that fed the river. Heavy rains picked up poison and seasonally flooded the Shimotsuke Plain.
The river turned bright blue. Fish, rice, potato plants, and trees died. Red swellings appeared on peoples' feet and many contracted eye diseases and went blind. By 1896, approximately fifty-thousand acres and half a million people were affected by the pollution and the resulting famine.
Using his political position to protest, he gave speeches, wrote articles, gathered petitions, offered legislation, and led demonstrations. At first the mining company ignored Shozo and his constituents. Later, they denied the pollution. Mine executives and many in government used their power to discredit Shozo as a crank and branded others who objected as unpatriotic a serious charge in days of war with China and later Russia. The Ashio copper mines were critical to military success and were a source of great export and financial gain in peacetime. The power of the mines was too great, and the government was complicit For twenty years Shozo fought the combination and failed. 
But he never gave up. Often alone and ridiculed Shozo was obstinate. He refused to let the government forget that the people and the land were suffering. He once appealed to the legislature. "If you cannot cut off the poison at its source; if you cannot cleanse the waters of our river; if you cannot restore fertility to our land; if you cannot protect our lives; then murder us, your loyal subjects." Shozo saw a connection between the land, the people, and the government. To him, if one did not function, all suffered. He often said, "To kill the people is to kill the nation." 
Shozo eventually lost faith in politics. In October 1901, he resigned his office.
On December 10, Shozo watched the Emperor's carriage travel to the palace. Dressed in a black kimono and wearing no shoes, Shozo rushed the vehicle holding a paper high in his hand. He shouted, "Petition to the Emperor! Petition to the Emperor!" Shozo expected to be killed, but also hoped his cause would be addressed. A mounted officer saw him coming and blocked the way. Shozo, the officer, and the horse fell to the pavement Shozo was declared a madman by authorities, but freed the next morning. The country fixated on the audacity of his action, rather than on his cause. At the moment of Shozo's most complete devotion and sacrifice, once again he failed. 
But Shozo continued to work for change. He decided that being with the people and serving them was more valuable than the exercise of power. "While I played politics," he wrote, "the people died." 
Specifically, Shozo associated himself with the people of Yanaka. The government wanted Yanaka to become a reservoir for polluted water that would otherwise flood the entire plain. The people were to be evicted with little compensation or respect for their traditions and the graves of their ancestors. Shozo lived with, shared the poverty of, and advocated for the people of Yanaka even as the government destroyed their homes. 
Shozo also devoted himself to "chisan chisui," or the "care of mountain and rivers." He took lengthy and solitary excursions to study and record the river's flow and describe its relationship to the mountains, forests, and seasons. He understood the environment as a system rather than a series of places.
Shozo claimed the land could not be restored and therefore the people could not be helped unless the river was seen in the context of its relationships. Hoping to educate and effect change, he organized public meetings and classes in which he extolled "The care of rivers is not a question of rivers, but of the human heart." 
Shozo died on September 4, 1913, and 30,000 people attended his funeral. There was something about the man and his message that inspired the connection of earth and people, the human obligation to nature, the moral obligation of government to the people and nature and Shozo's devotion to these principles that provoked and endured. In 1953, a shrine honoring his life was built in the wasteland that had once been Yanaka.
When thinking of Shozo, some might be reminded of John Muir, a contemporary who fought similar battles in the United States. Others might think of the sacrifice of Mahatma Gandhi or the devotion and tenacity of David Brower. Perhaps we don't know enough of Shozo to measure him, but it is striking how many of Shozo's issues, statements, beliefs, and actions resonate today
Questions of power, human relationship with the environment, tactics to effect change, and the responsibility of government challenge all of us. A voice for stewardship almost lost in the tumultuous rise of industrial Japan and still undiscovered in the West, Tanaka Shozo's struggle and sacrifice provoke deeper reflection on how people relate to each other and the natural world.
How did you come to care about the resource you care for now? Be specific.
Too Many Interpretations
Interpretation is a young profession in the process of defining its purpose, standards, and language. One of interpretation's problems is that there are too many interpretations of interpretation.
Most interpreters have the best of intentions, but for many personal style, preference, habit, and day-to-day work realities can too easily eclipse the purpose of interpretation.
On the following page are common interpretive caricatures. Each captures elements of how some resource professionals approach the work. Successful interpretation relies on aspects of all of them. Individual interpretive programs, depending on audience and circumstances will appropriately favor one caricature's characteristics over the others. Yet each following description goes too far and distorts interpretation. All of the caricatures have a purpose other than that of helping audiences make personal connections. They ignore, block, distract from, or manipulate resource meanings.
Information by itself has little significance to the majority of visitors who don't understand a subject's broader meanings and context. If audiences were simply seeking knowledge, most would have little reason to experience the site at all. Interpredata usually fails to help the audience make personal connections to the resource. All successful interpretation is built on accurate and comprehensive information, but like science, history, and anthropology, it uses information to say something meaningful.
This perspective is satisfied with a pleasant visitor experience and values interpretation primarily because it's entertaining. Certainly good interpretation engages attention and connects to audience interests, but interpretainment warps the concept. Interpretainment ignores the authentic and places the resource in the same arena with amusement parks. The result is a memorable personality or media presentation that eclipses and fails to connect the audience to the resource itself.
Audiences usually know when they are being told how to think, and don't like it. Interpreganda is most effective for visitors that already share the stated point of view. Interpreters need to say something significant about their places, but proselytizing can do damage. An often well intentioned and passionate insistence on a single perspective is manipulative, didactic, and fails to provide broader relevance, and the audience is not connected to the resource.
While education and interpretation are related and often overlap, there are significant differences between the two. Educational goals are usually directed at the acquisition of knowledge and skill. Interpretation should support those goals. Partnerships connect resources with schools, elder-hostels, scout, and religious groups. These institutions have long-term influence over learning and potentially powerful and beneficial effects on the resource. However, interpretation isn't measured by a test of knowledge at the program's end. Interpretation facilitates an opportunity for the audience to make their own connection to meaning.*
*Bob Roney created the terms, Interpredata, Interpretainment Interpreganda, and their descriptions.
Here is one way that successful interpretation might be described.
The profession of interpretation has an important and individual responsibility. Interpretation is influenced by science, history, anthropology, environmental education, museum studies, and other fields. But it has its own role.
Interpretation provokes the discovery of personal meaning, connection, and care about the resource. Interpretation also facilitates democracy. It allows for and stimulates a conversation of multiple meanings and points of view. Interpretation encourages audiences to find themselves in the resource as well as engage, comprehend, and appreciate the perspectives of others.
When you interpret, are you trying to get people to learn? Are you trying to entertain? Are you trying to get people to think the way you do? What is your purpose?
Last Updated: 29-May-2008
©2003, Eastern National
All rights reserved by Eastern National. Material from this electronic edition published by Eastern National may not be reproduced in any manner without the written consent of Eastern National.