Musing while I art "feverish" . . . . (Part-1)

Edouard Lagache (lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu)
Sat, 13 Jan 1996 10:26:48 -0800

Hello everyone,

My apologies for not getting back to the group. My little barb and a =
lot of issues have remained buried inside my own sphere of worries. =
However, I brought back from New Zealand a particularly tenacious =
Kiwi Flu (turned entrenched Bronchitis.) These musings have made me =
somewhat "feverish" (how much to attribute the fever to the topic =
remains to be seen.)

What truly jolted me was reference quiet a while back to the process =
of "meaning making" of children playing in a sandbox. During this =
time I had been having some private conversations about the sorry =
state of academic enterprises and had spoken of them as "big kids =
playing in their own sandbox." The resulting analogy is most =
troubling to me and I think well worth pursuing.

Michael Glassman writes:
>One child says the box is a castle. The other
>children agree to have the meaning of the box repeat as a castle
>for a certain period of time. Now I would guess all the children
>have a different sense of how the castle actually looks, how it
>appears in their consciousness, but they are able to get enough
>agreement to create a fantasy game between them,

It seems to me this analysis leaves out the one important ingredient: =
the world. In our world there are Castles, and ultimately children =
(and adults) are held accountable not simply to social conventions, =
but also to the large structures built of stone. It is very tempting =
within a social constructivist stance to forget the referents of =
words (like Castles.) As a scuba diver, I've learned the hard way =
that no amount of discourse conventions will make an 8 foot breaker =
any smaller.

However, let us consider the sand box for "big kids." When science =
educators (for example) get together to talk about scientific =
constructivism - what do they mean? Well, it is not like the =
referent to Castle that essentially a public object. Scientific =
terms are private - not to individuals, but to the "fields" of =
discourse (Bourdieu.) Moreover, the meaning of such terms is not =
defined ubiquitously throughout the public world (What =
Heidegger/Dreyfus would call "The One"). Instead, the right and =
privilege to coin, refine, and extend terms is itself part of the =
functioning of the scientific field. As such it is a realm of human =
struggle and very much the result of power relations. Thus =
paradoxically, scientific definitions are more detached from the =
phenomena than everyday terms. The scientific method assures that =
scientific definitions are less accountable to reality than everyday =
meanings.

This is why terms like =8Cfar=B9 are more problematic in science than =
everyday life. If I ask: =B3Is it far to Los Angeles from San =
Francisco=B2 most people in the United States can answer the =
question. If I ask: =B3Is it far from Hamilton to Wellington.=B2 =
The same group of people not only won=B9t know the answer, but they =
will know that they don=B9t know the answer. Either case the term =
=8Cfar=B9 is unproblematic. However, ask if a particular instance of =
transfer is a an example of =8Cnear=B9 or =8Cfar=B9 transfer. Even =
Cognitive Scientist types may disagree violently - not over the =
=B3facts=B2 but over the meaning of the term =8Cfar transfer.=B9

Because of the underlying power relations, terms are more likely to =
survive than their everyday counterpart. Scientific fields split =
just as conversation analysis split off from Linguistics and =
Ethnomethodology. As a result, very similar terminology now has =
three uses depending on the field.

If I compare the sandbox with the little kids making sand castles to =
the big kids making conceptual castles, I am left with a troubling =
conclusion. Little kids are more likely to come to some =
accommodation of the everyday world than the big kids in academia. =
The social infrastructure of scientific practice combined with the =
arbitrarily disproportionate respect given science results in =
enormous autonomy. Alas that autonomy can be from reality itself; =
the result has been the =B3intellectual runaway trains=B2 that we can =
all point to.

So I leave the group with the first source of my fever - what are the =
mechanisms (existing or possible) that keep the "big kids" of =
academia aware of the fact that 8 foot breakers exist? (and aren't =
healthy for divers no matter what the schedule might demand.)

Edouard

. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . =

: Edouard Lagache :
: lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu :
:...................................................................:
: We can not recapture the past any more than we can escape from it :
: Linda Lichter :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .