individuated activity

Jay Lemke (JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU)
Thu, 16 Nov 95 23:32:19 EST

Glenn Humphreys offers some interesting ways to get at the
individuation within the social. In a posting on another matter
today I was assuming this model (partially detailed in _Textual
Politics_, chaps.5,6), which comes, for me, from the
species/organism relation as it is conceptualized in modern
biological theories of the relation of development (organisms,
more generally individuals or _tokens_, develop) and evolution
(species, more generally _types_, evolve).

The basic idea is that the individual in part recapitulates the
developmental trajectory typical of its species, but always also
does so under unique conditions and with unique, individuating
results. Semiotically, the typical corresponds to, eg. generic
scripts, genre forms, etc., and the individual to particular
texts (read also, activity types, and action-events). I believe
that an important notion for understanding how types change
historically is a sort of type-token dynamics or dialectics:
every instantiation of a type is a token, and every token is
unique as well as typical; when the uniqueness comes to matter to
the future of the type, the type typically changes, and with it a
whole class of future tokens, completing the 'cycle'. This seems
to be exactly what happens in biological evolution. And as there,
one needs to keep in mind that 'types' are a bit more arbitrary
than tokens, i.e. they are the result of the kinds of
similarities or commonalities that we choose to pay attention to
in order to define a set of tokens as belonging to 'the same'
type. Species are every bit as hard to define as are dialect,
languages, activity-types or genres. There are no 'natural
kinds', not even in nature!

It is largely for this reason, and not because I am any great
admirer of the eurocultural, and especially American, cult of
individuality, that I think we need to devote more attention to
the role of individual uniqueness in development and social
dynamics. We may like to believe that development is 'equifinal',
but we also know that every child gets to Rome by a different
route, and that Rome therefore potentially looks different to
each new arrival -- _if_ we learn to pay attention to those
differences, _if_ there comes to be some reason why these
differences shall make a difference otherwise. They always can,
and often do. In my talk in Denmark, I proposed that it is the
very materiality of tokens which insures that types must change.
But that's another story. JAY.

-----------------

JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU