Meaning and Explanation

The kinds of meaning we find in representations of the past are related to the kinds of explanation we find satisfying or plausible. Is meaning the same thing as explanation? Not quite, I think. Meaning can be tragic or triumphant, optimistic or ironic. Explanation (or causation) is more neutral, mechanistic. That distinction may be false though; they do seem inseparable. But which way does the logic run? Do we find certain kinds of explanation plausible, and therefore derive certain kinds of meaning; or do we look for certain kinds of meaning, and therefore find certain explanations satisfying?

In biography or biopic (and perhaps in film more generally, since it is more likely to focus on specific characters), both meaning and explanation are located on a personal level, more than they usually are in academic written history. That doesn't mean films can't represent 'historical forces.' Sometimes the lives of individuals seem to be tossed around by the waves of an unseen storm. It is precisely in this situation that we might find meaninglessness, or a type of meaning that is nihilist or existential. We find other kinds of meaning where we can see individual agency, especially in personal relationships (where agency at least appears to be effective).

Reading biography, or watching biopics, encourages us to locate meaning in personal relationships, those near enough to actually be visible in our lives. History on a wider scale, in contrast, emphasises the relationships that are invisible and distant. When we focus on one of these, are we avoiding the responsibilities the other entails?