As I noted in some other posting recently (yes, probably too
many, but Mike more or less asked for a renaissance :), in true
collaboration (and up to a point necessarily in any interaction,
whether we encourage it or not) there is always appropriation and
transformation, not simply 'transmission'. Transmission is in
fact impossible, the way I look at such things, since there is
never an exact replication of practices (certainly not at the
infrasemiotic level, the neurological-bodily level), and indeed
could not be, given that the practice must be embodied not just
in us, but in the situation (always unique, as well as partially
generic).
This leads to what I call 'type/token dynamics', an aspect of
neogenesis (generalized semogenesis) briefly discussed in
_Textual Politics_ but really pretty complicated a matter. The
essence of it is that each 'token', each material historical
instance, of any 'type' (cultural semiotically defined category
or class of instances, based on ignoring some of their
particularities), is made by us (i.e. arises in the dynamics of
the ecosocial system) in part based on and through prevailing
'types' (e.g. activity-types, discourse-types, the object-types
they define, etc.). But it must always also be some unique
product of unique, though type-mediated, processes/practices, and
so partially new, novel, etc. This is the material genesis of the
new. But it may not 'count' culturally, may not be recognized as
new, or spread as a practice, unless it also becomes
_semiotically_ new. It must get constituted by other semiotic
practices as being an instance of a new 'type'. There are many
ways in which this can happen, and reasons why it does or does
not, and to what degree, etc. (That's the complicated part.) So
it is essentially the 'slippage' between the unique materiality
of tokens and the generic class-meaningfulness of types that
enables new meanings and types of activity to arise. It provides
the source and possibility of novelty. Other systemic factors
then dispose of these endless possibilities.
This does link to the issue of the role of the individual as a
unit of analysis relevant to creativity. But not in the usual
way. It is not that social systems are uncreative and merely
reproduce while individuals introduce novelty. That is, to my
eye, a rather ideological individualism. It is entirely non-
trivial to define what exactly the unit 'individual' ought to be
in such cases (see _Textual Politics_, chap5); so much creativity
attributed to individuals is really directly or indirectly
collaborative; etc. One must see the ecosocial system, on all
scales (including one for organisms, situated dyads, etc.), as
itself generating novelty in the slippage between its semiotic
aspects (types, and type-mediated practices) and its material
ones (tokens, historically-materially unique events and
subsystems). 'Individuals' as a unit of organization in such a
multi-level system operate in the same way: their material aspect
(embodiment, material interaction with the surround) and their
semiotic aspect (meaning-making mediated by types, classes,
signs, social-cultural formations) participate in an uneasy and
inevitably unstable (i.e. dynamic, change-generating) dialectic
with one another. But this requires not a simple notion of
individual, but one that can articulate how bodies and meaning-
makings, organisms and social personas/agents/identities get
mapped onto one another, mutually constitute and subvert the
stability of one another.
Any adequate analysis of how this happens must argue across
levels of organization: bodies and identities co-constitute and
destabilize one another through social-semiotic and material-
ecological processes at levels of organization both higher and
lower than the levels at which bodies and identities are defined
as units of analysis. This makes any simple opposition of the
individual to the social seem awfully simplistic and useless for
the purpose of understanding both individual and sociocultural
change. JAY.
--------------
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
From xfsu-request who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu Tue Apr 2 10:30:49 1996
Return-Path: xfsu-request who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Received: (from daemon who-is-at localhost) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA04692; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from mcole who-is-at localhost on tty1sif) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA03552; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:26:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Cole <mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Message-Id: <199604021726.JAA03552 who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Russian Student Society
Cc: tomb who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu, xfsu@weber.ucsd.edu
Status: RO
Those interested in making contact with the Russian Student Society
from their Psych department should send a message to anna who-is-at stud.ps.msu.su.
Here is a repeat of her useful note.
mike
>From stud!stud.ps.msu.su!anna who-is-at gamma.srcc.msu.su Mon Apr 1 14:35:53 1996
Received: by gamma.srcc.msu.su; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:56:19 +0400
To: mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Organization: Psychological Student Society MSU
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:53:19 +0400 (MSD)
>From: "Student Psychological Society MSU" <anna who-is-at stud.ps.msu.su>
Subject: Russian students seeks colleagues.
Dear Michael Cole!
The Scientific Student Society of the Psychological Department Moscow
State University asks for some help. May be you`d give us any information
about psycological programes for students, the similar student organizations
or something, that can help us find scientific contacts with colleagues.
We are ready for co-operation.
We would be very pleased with your help.
Respectfully yours, Anna Latysheva.