This quote prompts a deep examination of the act of reading and interpreting texts. It challenges the assumption that reading can be an entirely neutral, innocent activity—implying instead that every act of reading is infused with context, biases, and underlying ideologies. When we engage with texts, whether literary, political, or cultural, we do so through the lens of our own experiences, beliefs, and societal conditioning. Consequently, the interpretations we arrive at are inevitably influenced by these factors, making us 'guilty' of the perspectives we adopt or the issues we overlook.

Engaging critically with a text involves recognizing the potential power dynamics, political agendas, and cultural biases that shape both the material and our understanding of it. For instance, reading a political speech or a historical account might unconsciously reinforce certain narratives or stereotypes unless we actively interrogate the material. This awareness urges consciousness about our interpretative acts and urges us to reflect on whether our readings perpetuate existing power structures or challenge them.

The phrase also historicalizes reading—there is no single, universal 'truth' or 'innocent' interpretation, but multiple, contested understandings influenced by social factors. Acknowledging guilt in reading does not imply complicity in harm but rather recognizes our responsibility in how meaning is constructed and disseminated. It demands a more conscientious, self-aware approach to knowledge consumption, emphasizing responsibility rather than innocence.

In essence, this quote elevates reading from a passive activity to an active, ethically charged act. It is an invitation to scrutinize not just what we read but how and with what purpose, reminding us that knowledge is never neutral but inherently bounded and shaped by human subjectivity and societal power. ---Louis Althusser---