Thanks, Andy, I understand an insistence on "matter" to the exclusion of
"activity" as in some part a corrective measure. I wonder, though,
measure of the price paid by taking it so far.
You point to the sedimentation of language in the material of texts,
but what about unwritten languages -- which comprise most of the
in human experience?
Or, consider this example* (with apologies for using such a US
It has been said that the culture of any organization is found more
unwritten and unexamined stories and mythology that drive it than in
specific rules and regulations. For example, baseball, "America's
has a well-established set of rules that have changed very little
past century: three strikes and you are out, 90 feet between the
infield fly rule, and so on. The rulebook identifies 23 different
which a batter can reach first base. Baseball also has an elaborate
unwritten rules that have evolved over the last 100 years that all
are expected to observe. For example, a player who hits what he knows
be a home run must not stand in the batter's box to admire it because
so insults the pitcher. A player should never steal a base late in a
when his team is far ahead because it is considered "showing up" one's
opponent. If the star player of a team has been hit by a pitch, his
is expected to retaliate by hitting a member of the offending team
pitch because part of a pitcher's job is to protect teammates. In short,
there are unwritten stipulations that some things simply are not done in
baseball, and those who violate those norms can expect to pay a
penalty--usually in some form of retaliation from the other team.
For one thing, I think we can see in this an example of the
of the langue/parole distinction beyond just "language," as such. When a
pitcher aims his fastball at the batter's triceps in retaliation,
this is an
utterance (parole) in the language (langue) of playing baseball.
In the case of the written rules, those are "sedimented" in the
the printed rulebook, as well as in the matter of the physical bases
themselves, the physical matter of the basepaths between the bases,
in the case of all those unwritten rules, these rules are sedimented
shared practices, and the shared memories and understandings, of the
players, fans, etc. We might strain to insist on traces of these
forms of activity in just matter--more strictly speaking--but at what
It seems to me that such insistence implicates a way of dichotomizing
vs. activity that implies a dualism that denies the materiality of such
things as shared memories, shared practices, etc., as such.
What do you think?
*DuFour, Richard, Rebecca Burnette DuFour, and Robert E. Eaker.
Professional Learning Communities at Work: New Insights for Improving
Schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 2008, pp. 79-80.
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:52 PM
To: Tony Whitson
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Concepts as sedimentation
I recognise, Tony, that others use the term "sedimentation"
I choose to use the word with this very specific meaning. But the
not a lot different from the langue/parole distinction. If la langue
embodied in the actual daily use of words then I presume it is
text books and other material artefacts reflecting past usage. I am not
language-centric, so I tend to base the distinction on activity and the
artefacts it leaves behind to afford future activity
- that includes language-use but it not limited to that.
Tony Whitson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Andy Blunden wrote:
(specifically matter rather than activity)
Andy, I'm not sure what you mean by this.
As I was understanding sedimentation, it would pertain to something
like the grammar of a language. This is not activity as in
Saussure's _parole_; it is the regularity of _la langue_. It's not
something non-material; but is it "matter," or is it a matter of form?
Or am I understanding "sedimentation" too inclusively?
Joint Editor MCA:
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
xmca mailing list