Dewey wrote on 1/28/96,
>Eugene Matusov mentions:
>>...considering transmission of information from a
>>teacher to student (function I of communication, according to Lotman, 1988)
>
>I haven't the reference for Lotman, but I'm wondering, can we "transmit
>information from teacher to student?" What does "information" mean here?
>What do we mean by "transmission?"
>
>I am particularly confused when "development of new meanings" is "function
>II" of communication. (What is "new" meaning? New to the student, new to
>human culture...) I guess my problem is that I'm having a hard time
>thinking about communication without involving meaning making, hence what
>is "information" without concern for meaning making. So, how can there be
>the specific "function I" and how does one conceive of this particular
>"function II" differently if one allows that the stated function I exists?
>
Let me respond to that. I think there is no such a phenomenon as pure
transmission of information. However, there is an aspect of communication
that emphasizes more on the interpretation of intentions of others rather
than other aspects of the communication (e.g.., development of new ideas or
transformation of one's perception). There is also the ideology of
information transmission which declares that in the communication
information, as a stable easily verifiable entity, is transmitted. I
personally think that information is a process rather than entity that has
both material and ideal aspects.
As to Lotman's approach, I think he pointed exactly at two ABSTRACT aspects
(or functions in his terms) of communication (or text in his terms which
includes communication in his definition),
>the first function [of text -- EM.] is fulfilled best when codes of the
speaker and
>the listener most completely coincide and consequently, when the text has
the >maximum degree of univocality (Lotman, 1988, p. 34).
....
>The second function of text is to generate new meanings. In this respect a
text >ceases to be a passive link in conveying some constant information
between input >(sender) and output (receiver). Whereas in the first case a
difference between the >message at the input and that at the output of an
information circuit can occur >only as a result of a defect in the
communications channel, and is to be attributed >to the technical
imperfections of this system, in the second case such a difference >is the
very essence of text's function as a "thinking device." What from the first
>standpoint is a defect, from the second is a norm, and vice versa. (pp. 36-37)
If you put the two functions together, it becomes clear that meaning is
neither "transmitted" or "created" (or "constructed") but transformed (in
this sense, I share Dewey's frustration with the terminology that I used in
the previous message). However, in some cases, the misnomers can be a
useful approximation if a researcher foregrounds one aspect and keeps the
other as the background.
Still in our culture, the first aspect of transmission of information (or
transmission of knowledge) is privileged and overemphasized. Just recently
I read beautifully written book by David Olson (1995), "The world on paper."
It is a very smart book, I really recommend to read it. But I wish David
wrote a second volume because the book nicely explores the first function of
the text but did not address the second function. David's assumption is
that the main function of text (he talks about written texts) is to convey
message from the author to the reader. He argues that because written texts
have a lack of markers of author's intentionality (i.e., markers of how the
author wanted that his/her words would be taken by the reader), it has taken
long historical process of development of a reading paradigm of how text
should be read to get the author's message.
It is interesting and symptomatic that in his historical essay and analysis,
David emphasizes the progressivity of development of scientific reading and
writing and regressivity of mysticism and mystical reading and writing. It
is symptomatic because ideology (but not necessarily practice) of natural
science has emphasized communication as exchange of messages (function I of
text, according to Lotman), while ideology (but again not necessarily
practice) of mysticism has emphasized communication as transformation of
personality and spiritual development (function II of text).
It is also symptomatic that David started his book as a pluralist arguing
that all cultures are mature but finished up privileging decontextualization
over situated action. Describing models of navigation used with or without
decontextualized mediated actions (the former involved such tools of
decontextualization as geographical maps and globes, compass, instruments
for finding ship's longitude and latitude; the latter includes Micronesian,
Viking, Inuit ways of navigation within the navigating situation), he comes
to the conclusion that the latter "serves only as a mnemonic for the already
known;" while the former can serve "as a theoretical model for thinking
about unknown" (p. 216). By saying that repeats Vygotsky's similar claim
privileging decontextualization and function I of text,
>[A]n Australian child who has never been beyond the boundaries of his
village >amazes the cultural European with his ability to orient himself in
a country where >he has never been. However, a European school child, who
has completed just >one class in geography, can assimilate more than any
adult primitive man can ever >assimilate in his entire lifetime.
>[A]long with the superior development of innate or natural memory [italic
by the >authors], which seems to engrave external impressions with
photographic >accuracy, primitive memory also stands out for the qualitative
uniqueness of its >functions." (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993, p. 96)
Dewey asked me about function II. When function II is privileged, reading
text becomes a risky journey where a reader expects dramatic transformation
of him/herself at the end of the reading. It does not much important what
the author says as what changes in perception of the reader whole person it
causes. Using Kuhn's terminology, reading based on function II is about
paradigm shift in the reader rather than on getting some knowledge about
something. Read Calos Castaneda's books to feel the power of function II.
The reading is confusing and the reader's confusion and destabilization is
one of the primary author's goals without which transformation of whole
person in the reader can not be possible. However, the author does not
control reader's experience, s/he just creates possibilities for reader's
transformation in for of dangerous adventures and encounters. The final
point of the journey is unknown even for the author and consider to be
multiple. Author's messages are deceptive (which is nothing to do with
manipulation or lie). Interpretation of these messages is important not to
get what was intended to transmit but to change the reader's device of
interpretation itself.
Recently, attention to function II starts growing in social sciences
because, I think, of a new focus on institutional change and people's
development in institutional contexts.
In sum, I agree with Lotman that both function I, text as message, and
function II, text as journey, should be considered in a unit of analysis
that embraces both aspects. I think that decontextualization should not be
privileged and neither situated action.
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz
References
Castaneda, C. (1974). Tales of power. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lotman, Yu. (1988). Text within text. Soviet psychology, 26, 32-51.
Olson, D. R. (1994) The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive
implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape,
primitive, and child. V. I. Golod & J. E. Knox (Eds. and Trns.). London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
------------------------
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz