RE: Tools and activity

Timothy J. Lensmire (tjlensmi who-is-at artsci.wustl.edu)
Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:35:54 -0500 (CDT)

I will briefly extend something from Gordon Wells, in order to point to
something that makes me nervous about the metaphor of 'tool' or at
least with how it seems to get used. In response to an earlier note from
Michael Glassman, Gordon wrote that

. . . I think we may often mislead ourselves by talking as if an activity
only involves one tool, and so we have to choose whether language is the
preeminent one. In fact, almost all activities involve an orchestration of
many tools and practices according to a score that is jointly constructed and
emergent in the situation.
. . .

Gordon's reminder is very important, and I want to extend the "many
tools" part. What of the value-ladenness of choosing various tools or sets of
tools? That is, some tools are valued by certain groups, others are not.
"Tools" has this useful, positive ring to it, like you are choosing the "best"
tool for the job from a box of neutral (politically and morally) tools. Put a
handgun or semiautomatic weapon in the toolbox, or maybe a vibrator.
(This wondering probably comes from my long-term engagement with
Bakhtin--words, for example, always come to us already multiply-evaluated
by diverse and hierarchically arranged individuals and groups.)

Perhaps I am just displaying my lack of immersion in this literature. If
yes, could references be passed along that explicitly worry along the
things that might be difficult to talk about with "tool" metaphors. Thanks.

Tim Lensmire
Washington University