[Xmca-l] Re: Polysemy of "Community"

[Andy Blunden]

That's an alternative way to go, Cliff, define "community" by "shared 
meanings," but the upshot of that way is the counter-intuitive 
conclusion that kids and their parents belong to different "cultural 
communities."

There is one point which I must clarify though from your last words 
below: "The material form of an artifact may be universal in the sense 
that we may all agree on the label for it. However, the artifact may 
have very different meanings for us." No. The artefacts have a universal 
material form despite us having "different labels" for it. The 
foundation of natural science is that matter exist independently of 
human activity, obedient to natural laws which are knowable. And natural 
science has a right to exist; it is not a giant mistake. We *do* of 
course ascribe different meanings to one and the same material form or 
object, but that is thanks to human activity. The matter exists 
independently of our interpretation of it. This is why I know I can rely 
on artefacts to provide a sound, universal foundation for "community," 
and I leave it entirely open that a multiplicity of meanings and actions 
are in conflict within the community.

Andy

Cliff O'Donnell wrote:
>> So I can see a problem with making "community" the subject matter, or 
>> "unit of analysis" for a study;
>
>     We agree. That is why activity settings are the units of analysis 
> we use.
>
>> one would have to first select an artefact or combination of 
>> artefacts, (such as language and land) which serves to define the 
>> basis of the said "community." The point then is that the "community" 
>> is *not* defined by shared *meanings*;
>
>     So why define community by artifacts? Why not by shared meanings?
>
>> in fact, different components of the "community" may attach 
>> diametrically opposite meanings to a given artefact (word, symbol, 
>> tool, ...) or even use it in ways which are quite incommensurable.
>
>     If community is defined by shared meanings, those with 
> "diametrically opposite meanings" would by definition belong to 
> different cultural communities (even if they did live in the same 
> geographical unit).
>
>> But! the material form of the artefact is *universal* in what ever 
>> way it is used, meant or interpreted. The *materiality* of artefacts 
>> is the foundation was what is *universal* in human life. Projects 
>> give us what is *particular* in human life (ascribing different 
>> meanings to one and the same artefact), and actions (not persons) 
>> give us what is *individual* in human life, for the purposes of 
>> theoretical analysis.
>
>     The material form of an artifact may be universal in the sense 
> that we may all agree on the label for it. However, the artifact may 
> have very different meanings for us and these meanings may lead to 
> quite different actions and, as you point out, be the basis for conflict.
>
>     Cliff
>
>

--