Didn't mean to cast such aspersions Andy. Maybe I should clarify what
I was referring to when I pegged you (likely erroneously) with
the material/language split label.
You had, a long time ago, posted a question about the difference
between the dollar bill in your pocket and the words "dollar bill"
(and please insert appropriate denomination here). In that post, you
seemed to be suggesting that there was a fundamental distinction
there. I didn't have time, at that moment to respond (and these
conversations do move fast!), but the question stuck in my head for
some time b.c. it had such an obvious ring to it but also seemed to be
missing the way in which those two things are, in fact, really quite
the same thing (both attain "value" through the social and both have
similar materiality). I'm happy to say more on this point but frankly
I'm still a bit confused as to what ground you were staking out there
and here. Do you recall that prior post? I'm sure I could dig it up in
my notes but if you remember it, then it might be better to get some
clarification of what you were after rather than my notes on what I
thought you were after.
As for your protagonist, it seems like they have that wonderful
old-fashioned common sense view of language as a kind of delivery
system where communication is akin to tossing a football from one
person to another. Your protagonist, though, is completely unaware of
how the local rules (Aussie rules?) affect how the ball can (and
will!) be tossed. To carry the metaphor through, your protagonist sees
the "medium" merely as the air through which the ball is flying. Maybe
if you're at a really high altitude, the ball may travel a little
differently, but in most cases, it's pretty negligible, says the
protagonist. The airy metaphor with "phonemes" here is apt. With
language, your protagonist would likely say "so what if you call a cow
a 'cow' or a 'vache' - it's still the same thing." I say, in many
cases (particularly when you look at languages that are more
divergent), it isn't the same thing at all.
So the question that I keep coming back to is: how do you get them to
see the role of the rules, particularly when the rules are so
transparent to so many people (as with language, so too with culture).
It is hard to argue that these rules matter if they appear perfectly
transparent (and though it may be cliche, the crystalline lens of the
eye is a wonderful metaphor - transparent but essential for sight -
so, what would be the language/culture equivalent of having your
protagonist's "lenses" removed?).
Love to hear more detail of your prior post about dollar bills, as
well as how it is coming with your protagonist.
-greg
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Well Greg, I recoil in horror from the idea that I am proposing
"the material/language split"! Of course, I abhor such an idea.
There is a difference between setting out one's ideas, on one
hand, and on the other, trying to make a point in such a way that
someone who doesn't share your set of concepts, can see the point.
My protagonist is fully in agreement that language is the medium
in which norms are instantiated, shared and transmitted down the
generations, and does not deny that words are material artefacts
and essentially so. They just don't see the point of including
*other* artefacts (linguistic or not), other than phonic.
What I have a problem with is the consistent effort to deny the
essential existence of concepts, in the world. My protagonist
would also agree that language and norms are meaningless other
than in connection with Activity. But it is taken as incidental
that a sign or word exists before the interaction happens. On the
contrary, I see "cultural memory" as absolutely essential to the
existene of culture. Is it possible to explain a person's, or two
persons' actions, without taking into account how some idea came
into existence before they were born? Is there anything in the
question of the origin of human society other than two people
talking to each other?
And to Tony: yes, C S Peirce is wonderful on this. Strangely, even
though he is the *inventor* of Pragmatism (though he denies it), I
think the movement which followed is not directly inspired by his,
or Dewey's ideas, but rather seems to have grown out of conditions
in the USA. Perhaps "inspired" but not in the same way that other
great figures have had a "following" which interpreted and
popularised their writings.
To Larry, what if myu protagonist doesn't see any point in mediation?
Andy
Greg Thompson wrote:
Yes, I think I see. I just have a hard time on the split
between material artifacts and language. You've made that
argument before and while I understand the distinction from an
emic perpective, I also that it is not very useful when making
arguments about social mediation. The sign is like a material
artifact in that it is of social origins and it allows us to
do something that we might not otherwise be able to do.
To make this point and as one more suggestion to try with
your protagonist, why not try the phylogenetic argument. Two
examples work well here. Consider the first use of a arrow or
spear and how that transformed all of mankind not simply by
making it easier to get food but by creating a diet that had
higher amounts of fat, this created opportunities for the
human body to evolve (over generations of generations) in new
ways (this is a dialectic argument pushed across a great many
years - the ability to use the tool created new evolutionary
possibilities). Second, consider the use of language as a tool
and how this transforms the hunt such that people can
coordinate their attacks in much more complex ways (although
it should be said that many animals do pretty complex
coordinated attacks when hunting, everything from hyenas to
whales - but it seems like there is something about planning
and foresight that humans can do that dogs can't, but maybe
this will be another sticking point).
So the idea is to try the argument of human language vs.
non-human language. What does having human language "get" you
in some larger sense. It seems critical in order to be able to
do all the things that we do that distinguish us from animals,
no? Buildings, commerce, technology, etc. - all turns on our
ability to use language humanly. And the fact that we have the
available time that we do (as well as the ability to instantly
communicate around the globe - Hello Australia!) also makes it
possible for us to engage with each other in ways that we
could not otherwise.
But, as you see, I've offered little in the way of material
artifacts (the arrowhead). This is because I see the important
point being one that involves social mediation and certainly
materials are needed, but it seems to me to be too easy to
pick apart the material argument because you can always
substitute other material artifacts. What you can't substitute
is the social nature of the artifacts being used. And language
makes that argument best. Two questions strike the heart of
the matter here: Who would you be without language? Where does
language come from?
Curious to hear your thoughts, esp. re: the material/language
split (e.g., isn't language "material" in exactly the same way
as the material artifact? Or is language somehow "immaterial"?)
-greg
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
Of course you are right Greg that language, whether spoken or
written, is the mediating artefact par excellence. But not
everyone recognises words as specifically mediating
artefacts. The
dominant trend of interactionism today regards interactions
as a
subject-to-subject dyad, and subsumes within each subject their
knowledge and facility with language use. So the status of
words
as artefacts existing prior to and independently of the
interacting individuals is invisible. Indeed, the actually
words
do not exisat prior to the interaction, only the "model"
for them,
so to speak. The distinction between a text (i.e., the written
word) and speech in this context is just that those who do not
come from Cultural Psychology or Activity Theory do not take
speech as a mediating artefact, but rather a function of the
subject. This allows them to pretend that a culture is
recreated
from scratch every moment as people interact, and the subject's
memory and continuing language-ability is the only thing
guaranteeing the existence of culture, recreating appropriate
words in the course of evey interaction.
I agree with you that the distinction between text and
speech is
entirely secondary but in the context of arguing for the
very idea
of mediating artefacts it becomes important, because my
protagonist just doesn't see the point of considering mediating
artefacts, i.e., material objects with social significance, at
all. This is what forces me on to the territory of "cultural
memory." If cultural memory can be plausibly explained without
recourse to the idea of mediating artefacts, then it is just as
Deborah suggested, we must agree to disagree, it's just a
difference of preference.
Do you see what I am getting at?
Andy
Greg Thompson wrote:
Seems like you're in a pinch Andy. The way you've
phrased the
problem makes it something of a riddle to me, for a
number of
reasons. How do you pass things by word of mouth but
not with
texts? Unless by "texts" you meant written words, in which
case, what do you make of oral "texts" passed down through
generations? There are other sorts of ways in which thickly
culturally mediated words and practices, similar to the
things
that Lucas mentioned, are passed down through the
generations.
So I'm with Lucas that there are lots of examples of
cultural
practices (activities?) that get passed on from
generation to
generation without necessarily having land or artifacts
tied
to them. But I also disagree with your "protagonist."
I'd locate the problem somewhere in the notion that
words of
the mouth are unmediated expressions of subjectivity.
Two big
problems here, first, words, second subjectivity.
Taking the
second first (b.c. you seem to suggest that he is positing
that "words" are unmediated - more on that later), if
subjectivity has thickly social origins, i.e. is
mediated by
culture and place, then aren't things issuing forth
going to
be mediated by culture. Volosinov and Bakhtin provide
some of
the best thinking about this (I'd strongly suggest
Volosinov's
Chapter 3 of Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, titled
Language and Objective Psychology).
For me, Andy, the problem arises when you accept your
protagonist's claim that language simply and
straightforwardly
brings what is inside out. You skim over language as a
mediating artifact. I think there's been some talk
about this
lately (some in disagreement with my position), but I just
don't see how you can leave language out as a mediating
artifact.
But maybe you can give some convincing examples?
And maybe I'm missing the larger point of your position.
But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the
times
as one in which people don't see the mediating artifacts
around them (I regularly teach about my favorite mediating
artifact: language!). I think the success of the
American TV
show Survivor provides good evidence of the
Robinsonade-like
fantasies of people today who imagine themselves as great
heroes surviving in the wild. (and I'd add that Volosinov's
other well-known book, Freudianism, speaks very well to the
fantasies of the bourgeousie during times of crisis).
-greg
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
My point is, Lucas, that I doubt that this can be
done in fact,
without reliance on one kind or another of enduring
artefact. I
need a counterexample to be convinced.
Andy
Lucas Bietti wrote:
Dear Andy,
Can these customs be related to ways of
behaving according to
specific social contexts? In a broad sense,
'politeness' in
the pragmatic and discursive sense (to say the right
things at
the right time) could be a way of behaving
handed down from
one generation to the next based on imitation and
correction
by verbal communication among members of the
same epistemic
community. This also depends on what you are
referring
to by
'cultural memory'.
Lucas
On October 15, 2011 at 1:54 AM Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>
wrote:
> I need some help. I am having a discussion with a
supporter
of Robert
> Brandom, who was at ISCAR, but is not an Activity
Theorist.
on the
> question of cultural memory.
>
> One of my criticisms of Robert Brandom is that he
does not
theorise any
> place for mediation in his theory of
normativity. He
supposes that norms
> are transmitted and maintained down the
generations
by word
of mouth
> (taken to be an unmediated expression of
subjectivity), and
artefacts
> (whether texts, tools, buildings, clothes,
money) play no
essential role
> in this.
>
> I disagree but I cannot persuade my protagonist.
>
> I challenged him to tell me of a (nonlierate)
indigenous
people who
> managed to maintain their customs even after being
removed
from their
> land. My protagonist responded by suggesting
the Hebrews,
but of course
> the Hebrews had the Old Testament. Recently on
xmca
we had
the same
> point come up and baseball culture was
suggested, and I
responded that I
> didn't think baseball-speak could be
maintained without
baseball bats,
> balls, pitches, stadiums, radios, uniforms and
other
artefacts used in
> the game.
>
> Am I wrong? Can anyone point to a custom
maintained over
generations
> without the use of arefacts (including land
and texts as
well as tools,
> but allowing the spoken word)?
>
> Andy
> --
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego