[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Cultural memory

Larry, Andy, Greg, and everyone,
From a Peircean point of view, it's all semiosis, or sign activity. "We
think only in signs," and signs are, fundamentally and irreducibly, triadic relations.
What functions as one off the three terms in a triadic relation may be a material thing, a symbol, an event, or anything at all that can stand in relation to two other terms, such that two terms act in relation to each other through the mediation of the third term. In the "perfusion of signs" that constitutes our Umwelt, webs, networks, and relays of signs emerge from their constituent triadic relations, in which things, events, interpretations, etc. can play out their intermediations even at the nuclear level of the most irreducible of signs. In this view of semiosis, there is no notion of corresponding "planes" such as we see in Saussure, or even in Eco (such as in Eco's notion of a 'code' is a rule which correlates elements of an expression-plane with elements of a content-plane.)
From this perspective, we would not expect see anything like norms or
customs communicated across generations apart from their being norms or customs of conduct in the material world. On the other hand, as Greg is saying, it would be hard to argue against transmission through the sign activity of language, as if language itself (incl. language in the forms of genres, texts, traditions, etc.) were something immaterial. From a Peircean perspective, it is the relations, in their intermediating activity, that are seen as fundamental -- not just "things" considered as existing somehow apart from their relations in the world of semiosic being. So, in the materiality of such fundamental, semio-active triadic relations, there is no signification apart from activity in the material world, and hence no question about material versus (somehow) non-material modes of transmission. 

 ... just my two bits, for what it's worth ...

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Larry Purss wrote:


Andy, Greg, Tony

I have been reflecting on language as genres, texts or traditions.  What is
the relation of "mere" interactionalism to "texts".  One approach is to
place language or texts between the dyad and language becomes the mediating
artefact coordinating the interactions within the dyad.

What if we move the pieces and place the more "skillful" person
[knowledgeability] between the less skilled person and the "text". The
person with more knowledgeability in moving skillfully within these
linquistic artefacts [and other material artifacts]  introduces, through
mutually coordinating the the less skillful person & the texts, ways of
orienting and dwelling in the world.
This then leaves space for e*motion as an interactional aspect between the
dyad as the person with more knowlegeability guides the novice in developing
the skills of using the cultural artefacts.

I recognize this "analyzing" into "parts" is a heuristic artefact and
neither triangle is "true". It is a particular textual artefact to consider
the relations between the dyad and texts.

Larry

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:


It seems to me that Hannah Arendt's _HUMAN CONDITION_ could provide a lot
of help with these issues. Unfortunately, I don't have time now to dig that
out; but if somebody else is familiar with that work, maybe they could help.



On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Andy Blunden 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>> 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>> 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<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
      > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
       <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>**>
      > 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>
      > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>


   -- ------------------------------**------------------------------**
------------
   *Andy Blunden*
   Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
   Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
**>
   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>
   http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<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<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: 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
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>



Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716

twhitson@udel.edu
______________________________**_

"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                 -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)

______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716

twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________

"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca