[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie

Thanks --- I hope (:-)) for the Derrida, Tony. I sent along the Cooley
simply because it was sitting on the page on history of comm i was
reading and seemed to touch on the "communication/social relations"
issue that David was raising. Cooley's odd mixture of idealism and
pragmatism makes him odd for me to think with. But at least he popped up on
the page in a relevant place giving historical substance to what was at play
in David's note.

2009/11/21 Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu>

> Yes, "communication" is used like that; but I think it's profoundly wrong
> to
> reduce social signification to communication in this sense.
> Derrida was critical of that tendency in Saussure. I've attached a pdf with
> a couple quotes (it's from the amazon preview page -- sorry but I don't
> have
> time to "communicate" the content in a smoother way right now).
> Peirce also often fell into this way of rendering signification as
> communication. Rick Parmentier finds Peirce to have arrived late in his
> career at this kind of reduction as his general position. I think Rick
> overstates CSP's commitment to this position, but it was a pronounced
> tendency. (I think Engstrom misinterprets Parmentier's interpretation of
> Peirce here.)
> I am writing on this now, proposing a different understanding of
> signification (including thinking, social organization, and understanding).
> One implication is that Sfard's use of "communication" for "commognition"
> might not do justice to where she wants to go with that.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of mike cole
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> Subject: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
> " Since communication is the precise measure of the possibility of social
> organization, of good understanding among men (sic), relations that are
> beyond its range are not truly social..
> GH Cooley, 1894.
> for Cooley, like Pierce, "mind is made concrete in culture."
> ---------------
> Cooley's first book: The theory of transportation. No accident that.
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> If asked for the dominant translation, communication would be my
> translation, David. Work of mine using the word communication has been
> translated using obshenie repeatedly in Russian. Of course, that brings us
> to a point you do not explicitly raise. What does communication mean in
> English in .....1830/1930/1950/2009? In England, the US and elsewhere. The
> complex transformations of the word's dominant meanings in different
> discourses has been changing (I am at present teaching a course on the
> "history of communication" and the issue is ever before us).
> Relevant here, as well, is the point made by Suppes, emphasized by
> D'Andrade, and appropriated by me in various contexts that defintions are
> often/always covertly theories.
> Seems like its a term ripe for a systematic comparative treatment. Who
> knows, perhaps friend Boris Mescheryakov, who interests himself in such
> issues, will help us out!!
> mike
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <
> bella.kotik@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > David, I consider that "общение" may be translated as "communication"
> > or "contact" depending on the context, but "social relations" would be
> > "общественные отношения".
> > Bella Kotik
> >
xmca mailing list