Reading “The Role of Interpretive Communities in Remembering and Learning” (Shahzad, 2011) proved to be thought provoking and confusing. Perhaps shocking to you; prior to reading this study, never had it occurred to me that the concept of an interpretive community (Fish, 1976) might have existed. Shahzad describes an interpretive community as, “A collectivity of significant others, (who) play an influential role in the consumption and negotiation of knowledge” (2011).

In this particular study Shahzad is extending Wertsch’s (2002) theory focusing on textual resources and how they “shape the speaking and thinking of individuals to such a degree that they can be viewed as serving as ‘co-authors’ when reflecting on the past”. His study suggests a process of mediation occurs between Human Agents and Technologies of Memory.  However, in Shahzad’s further findings, she includes interpretive communities (2011) as being another main force influencing how students learn and remember.

What intrigues me about interpretive communities (Shahzad, 2011) is their intricacy. If interpretive communities exist, every individual forms part of a variety. These interpretive communities act as filter systems for the information we receive, but more importantly how we receive it. With these interpretations, our opinions on information are formed. However, we are not part of one single interpretive community, but rather multiple. If individuals are products of these multiple interpretive communities that would mean that we are both affected by interpretive communities but we also have an effect on them.

This leads me to question the concept and significance of interpretive communities. In an increasingly globalized world, the composition of our interpretive communities is becoming more diverse. Individuals are continuously moving in and out of various interpretive communities, carrying with them their own interpretations of knowledge. An interpretive community cannot interpret information as a whole; it requires individuals. Individuals individually interpret information. Therefore, how significant is the “collectivity of significant others” (Shahzad, 2011), and really how remarkable is it that vast groups which we are coming in contact with are interpreting the information we receive, when we too are interpreting information for others.