[Xmca-l] Re: Bateson on thinking relatively

[Jonathan Tudge]

This is, of course, a great quote, and not for nothing is the word
"ecology" found in the title of Bateson's book.

True, when trying to explain the phenomenon of the axe cutting the tree,
ALL of the things he mentioned are important, and all are interconnected.
But that's not very helpful from a developmental point of view.  If I want
to do a better job cutting trees there are some things that there's not
much point me trying to work on (in particular, I don't know what I'd need
to do to work on my central nervous system).  But I could get a sharper axe
(or by a better one), because the sharpness is one thing that influences
the cutting.  Influences, but clearly doesn't cause.  I might also work on
my muscles, as they also influence the cutting.  Perhaps getting better
glasses would help.  Practicing my skills would be another useful factor
(influence?).  In other words, if we want to make some changes it would be
worth considering all these as mutually relevant influences, and maybe I
work on them separately (going to the gym to increase muscle strength, to
the opticians for glasses), even while at the same time realizing that
they're all constitutive of the whole process.

There again, I'd also better think about the broader influences--am I
cutting wood to put into my fireplace to burn for its aesthetic nature, as
my heating system at home is fine?  Or is this a skill that's really
important in my cultural group because without it I'm not going to be able
to construct my home, or be able to survive the winter, in which case I'm
likely to be learning how to wield the axe in the company of others who are
more competent.

So, in response to Mike's earlier point in response to me...I don't think
that "influence" means "cause."  And I think that when considering emergent
properties we have to realize both that those properties can never be
reduced to the things that brought them into being, but it's worth
considering how A might be influencing B even while recognizing that some
of that influence has already been in turn influenced by B (and C, D, E,
etc.).

And getting back to Bronfenbrenner, although he's typically viewed as
someone who viewed context (different, though interwoven, layers of
context, Andy) as causal, his theory is as ecological (or bioecological) as
Bateson's.

Cheers,

Jon


~~~~~~~~~~~

Jonathan Tudge

Professor
Office: 155 Stone

Our work on gratitude: http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/

A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas, L. (Eds.) Developing
gratitude in children and adolescents
<https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge

Mailing address:
248 Stone Building
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
PO Box 26170
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
USA

phone (336) 223-6181
fax   (336) 334-5076






On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:38 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Darned if I did not find that Bateson passage online! Amazing.
> Here it is from *Steps to an Ecology of Mind.*
>
> mike
> --------------\
>
> Consider a tree and a man and an axe. We observe that the axe flies through
> the air and makes certain gashes in a pre-existing cut in the side of the
> tree. If we now want to explain this set of phenomena, we shall be
> concerned with differences in the cut face of the tree, differences in the
> retina of the man, differences in the central nervous system, differences
> in his different neural messages, differences in the behaviour of his
> muscles, difference in how the axe flies, to the differences which the axe
> then makes on the face of the tree. Our explanation will go round and round
> that circuit. If you want to explain or understand anything in human
> behaviour, you are always dealing with total circuits, completed circuits.
> (Bateson, 1972, p. 433)
>
>
>
> Later in the same paper he writes about how difficult it is to adopt this
> epistemology:
>
>
>
> I can stand here and I can give you a reasoned exposition of this matter;
> but if I am cutting down a tree, I still think ‘Gregory Bateson’ is cutting
> down a tree. I am cutting down the tree. ‘Myself’ is to me still an
> excessively concrete object, different from the rest of what I have been
> calling ‘mind’.
>
>
>
> The step to realizing – to making habitual – the other way of thinking – so
> that one naturally thinks that way when one reaches out for a glass of
> water or cuts down a tree – that step is not an easy one.
>
>
> .... Once we have made this shift, our perspective fundamentally changes.
> We firstly start focusing on relationships, flows and patterns; and
> secondly realize that we are part of any field we are studying.
>