Re: [xmca] Cultural memory

[Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>]

Didn't mean to cast such aspersions Andy. Maybe I should clarify what I was
referring to when I pegged you (likely erroneously) with
the material/language split label.

You had, a long time ago, posted a question about the difference between the
dollar bill in your pocket and the words "dollar bill" (and please insert
appropriate denomination here). In that post, you seemed to be suggesting
that there was a fundamental distinction there. I didn't have time, at that
moment to respond (and these conversations do move fast!), but the question
stuck in my head for some time b.c. it had such an obvious ring to it but
also seemed to be missing the way in which those two things are, in fact,
really quite the same thing (both attain "value" through the social and both
have similar materiality). I'm happy to say more on this point but frankly
I'm still a bit confused as to what ground you were staking out there and
here. Do you recall that prior post? I'm sure I could dig it up in my notes
but if you remember it, then it might be better to get some clarification of
what you were after rather than my notes on what I thought you were after.

As for your protagonist, it seems like they have that wonderful
old-fashioned common sense view of language as a kind of delivery system
where communication is akin to tossing a football from one person to
another. Your protagonist, though, is completely unaware of how the local
rules (Aussie rules?) affect how the ball can (and will!) be tossed. To
carry the metaphor through, your protagonist sees the "medium" merely as the
air through which the ball is flying. Maybe if you're at a really high
altitude, the ball may travel a little differently, but in most cases, it's
pretty negligible, says the protagonist. The airy metaphor with "phonemes"
here is apt. With language, your protagonist would likely say "so what if
you call a cow a 'cow' or a 'vache' - it's still the same thing." I say, in
many cases (particularly when you look at languages that are more
divergent), it isn't the same thing at all.

So the question that I keep coming back to is: how do you get them to see
the role of the rules, particularly when the rules are so transparent to so
many people (as with language, so too with culture). It is hard to argue
that these rules matter if they appear perfectly transparent (and though it
may be cliche, the crystalline lens of the eye is a wonderful metaphor -
transparent but essential for sight - so, what would be the language/culture
equivalent of having your protagonist's "lenses" removed?).

Love to hear more detail of your prior post about dollar bills, as well as
how it is coming with your protagonist.
-greg






On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Well Greg, I recoil in horror from the idea that I am proposing "the
> material/language split"! Of course, I abhor such an idea. There is a
> difference between setting out one's ideas, on one hand, and on the other,
> trying to make a point in such a way that someone who doesn't share your set
> of concepts, can see the point. My protagonist is fully in agreement that
> language is the medium in which norms are instantiated, shared and
> transmitted down the generations, and does not deny that words are material
> artefacts and essentially so. They just don't see the point of including
> *other* artefacts (linguistic or not), other than phonic.
>
> What I have a problem with is the consistent effort to deny the essential
> existence of concepts, in the world. My protagonist would also agree that
> language and norms are meaningless other than in connection with Activity.
> But it is taken as incidental that a sign or word exists before the
> interaction happens. On the contrary, I see "cultural memory" as absolutely
> essential to the existene of culture. Is it possible to explain a person's,
> or two persons' actions, without taking into account how some idea came into
> existence before they were born? Is there anything in the question of the
> origin of human society other than two people talking to each other?
>
> And to Tony: yes, C S Peirce is wonderful on this. Strangely, even though
> he is the *inventor* of Pragmatism (though he denies it), I think the
> movement which followed is not directly inspired by his, or Dewey's ideas,
> but rather seems to have grown out of conditions in the USA. Perhaps
> "inspired" but not in the same way that other great figures have had a
> "following" which interpreted and popularised their writings.
>
> To Larry, what if myu protagonist doesn't see any point in mediation?
>
> Andy
>
> Greg Thompson wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think I see. I just have a hard time on the split between material
>> artifacts and language. You've made that argument before and while I
>> understand the distinction from an emic perpective, I also that it is not
>> very useful when making arguments about social mediation. The sign is like a
>> material artifact in that it is of social origins and it allows us to do
>> something that we might not otherwise be able to do.
>>  To make this point and as one more suggestion to try with your
>> protagonist, why not try the phylogenetic argument. Two examples work well
>> here. Consider the first use of a arrow or spear and how that transformed
>> all of mankind not simply by making it easier to get food but by creating a
>> diet that had higher amounts of fat, this created opportunities for the
>> human body to evolve (over generations of generations) in new ways (this is
>> a dialectic argument pushed across a great many years - the ability to use
>> the tool created new evolutionary possibilities). Second, consider the use
>> of language as a tool and how this transforms the hunt such that people can
>> coordinate their attacks in much more complex ways (although it should be
>> said that many animals do pretty complex coordinated attacks when hunting,
>> everything from hyenas to whales - but it seems like there is something
>> about planning and foresight that humans can do that dogs can't, but maybe
>> this will be another sticking point).
>>  So the idea is to try the argument of human language vs. non-human
>> language. What does having human language "get" you in some larger sense. It
>> seems critical in order to be able to do all the things that we do that
>> distinguish us from animals, no? Buildings, commerce, technology, etc. - all
>> turns on our ability to use language humanly. And the fact that we have the
>> available time that we do (as well as the ability to instantly communicate
>> around the globe - Hello Australia!) also makes it possible for us to engage
>> with each other in ways that we could not otherwise.
>>  But, as you see, I've offered little in the way of material artifacts
>> (the arrowhead). This is because I see the important point being one that
>> involves social mediation and certainly materials are needed, but it seems
>> to me to be too easy to pick apart the material argument because you can
>> always substitute other material artifacts. What you can't substitute is the
>> social nature of the artifacts being used. And language makes that argument
>> best. Two questions strike the heart of the matter here: Who would you be
>> without language? Where does language come from?
>>
>> Curious to hear your thoughts, esp. re: the material/language split (e.g.,
>> isn't language "material" in exactly the same way as the material artifact?
>> Or is language somehow "immaterial"?)
>> -greg
>>
>>  On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> 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>
>>        <mailto: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>
>>               <mailto: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/%7Eandy/**>
>>               > 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>
>> >
>>
>>               <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>
>>        <mailto: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/%7Eandy/**
>> >
>>
>>           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>
>> >
>>
>>           <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>
>>        <mailto: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/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/*
>> *>
>>    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>
>
>


-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca