Posts exploring implications of popular culture events (movies, youtube, memes, etc.)
Author: admin
Index of posts related to anthropoligical theorizing
Main Index of topics I have addressed
on ‘Lost’ as educator
if one can teach oneself about, say, the philosopher John Locke, has one learned anything? How would ‘we’ know? Does one know something if no one has certified that she does?
There is a part of me that is half-ashamed in the pleasure I take in such shows as the TV series Lost. It is of course gratifying to know that many people do. More interesting is the discovery of what so many of these people are doing with the show. Let me join them.
I will leave to a student the task of tracing the full extent of what people are actually doing with Lost. Given its success, I am sure someone has started doing this. So I will give this student one more issue to trace: Lost can also be explored as a site for education. I build here on a journalistic piece written for the web site of Christianity Today. I will do so to highlight the educational aspect of the show and how its fits with what I have been writing about in recent years (2008, 2009).
This piece (posted 5/18/2009) is written by Tyler Charles, a freelance writer. He mentions some of what people are doing with Lost as they investigate the scientific, literary, philosophical and religious hints the show gives. Charles lists the books and philosophers mentioned, the major philosophical issued revealed, as well as other matters. He does not mention anyone exploring the political aspects of the show and yet, particularly in the first season, a major issue was the nature of leadership and the organization of government (“Who made you the leader, Jack?”, “A leader can’t lead until he knows where he is going.” – Episode 5). Actually, this issue has been reopened with the (divine?) appointing of Locke as leader by “the island.” I suspect some people are also exploring this since it can open conversations about the very grounding of democracy.
Charles reports that people are following these leads. They seek to find out more about the physics of time travel and electromagnetism, or what might make John Locke or David Hume important enough persons to have characters named after them. Of course, there is a wiki site where one can start exploring all this: lostpedia.wikia.com.
The French philosopher Jacques Rancière (who still does not have a character named after him on Lost…) brought out of obscurity a, until now, minor figure of the French Revolution, Joseph Jacotot. Rancière recounts how Jacotot demonstrated, to his satisfaction at least, that any one, particularly someone who did NOT know the subject matter, could “teach” this matter. Even more challenging he argued that all the material they needed was one book, Télémaque written by Fénelon. It was not because the book was a source of universal wisdom but because, to say all this more carefully:
anyone (not quite a teacher) can produce a situation
…… where someone else (not quite a student) can learn
………. what this person must have the will to learn, and that,given this will,
…… anything (and not necessarily Télémaque)
………. can start this person on the way to find out for herself what she wants to know.
This actually might be the basis for a Lost episode. Unless it is the point of the whole show where everyone has to figure out, again, what to do next given what has happened to them in the past.
In that perspective, Lost (like probably Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) is becoming a Télémaque for a generation of people using it as a departure to teach themselves about physics, religion, human relationships, etc., not to mention of course many aspects of what used to be called “literary criticism,” and would now fall under the purview of “popular culture studies.”
The question, for a faculty at Teachers College, of Columbia University, is: when someone teaches herself anything, does she “learn” it? Does one know something if no one has certified that she does?
on researching autism as “cultural fact”
on modeling “autism” as a cultural fact, that is as an enabling and disabling resource for all those who cannot escape it, whether as “child with autism,” parent or teacher of such a child, administrator of a school with special education classrooms, or as policy maker devising new regulations about how to deal with all the above.
There is a cliche in the sentiment that one of the best part in being a professor is being faced by great students challenging one’s pet ideas. But a cliche can also be true as I experienced again when Juliette de Wolfe, at the end of a seminar, told me that she was anxious about using one of my favorite conceits. For close to 20 years, McDermott and I have been writing about such matters as learning disabilities as “cultural facts.” De Wolfe, who is starting a project on the processes for the identification of autism, and who had used the phrase in her proposal, was worried that she was caught in something, that was “static.”
On the spot, my answers were weak and not convincing–certainly they were not convincing to me as I thought about them later. I had mumbled something about the adjective “static” being possibly an attribute of a research analysis, not of a concept that could be used in any number of ways, that emphasizing “change” is much easier said than done, and that those that claim that they do not want to be “static” mostly produce analyses that end up extremely static. Had I not been interrupted, I probably could have gone on in this defensive/offensive mode without quite answering a very proper concern about the very justification for social science research, particularly in its anthropological version.
McDermott and I devised the phrase (“cultural fact”) to index our roots in Durkheimian sociology (as reinterpreted by Garfinkel) and in American cultural anthropology and pragmatism. Earlier I had pointed de Wolfe to the pages in Successful failure (1998) where McDermott and I developed the phrase “cultural fact” we had introduced earlier (McDermott & Varenne 1995). But these passages are not enough.
To stay with de Wolfe’s concern, let’s say that we are interested in children who are having a difficult life and particularly with those who have, or are caught with, something now labeled “autism,” something that was discovered-as-such in America and in the 1940s. It is something that was fully institutionalized starting in the 1970s. Autism may be some thing that has always been there in humanity, though until recently this thing may have been labeled something else, or institutionalized differently. Just putting the issue this way should make it clear that I am taking here the classical cultural anthropological stance (Benedict 1934). I make the noticing of autism as a thing with specific personal, interactional, and political consequences, a historical event. In other words I place autism “in its historical context,” or, more jargonistically, I “historicize” autism.
All this is well and good, but it actually must leave our apprentices in confusion. What are future anthropologists to do next, after we have historicized autism, or any one of its sub-practices (e.g. the meetings where a child gets officially labeled)? What is the point of historicizing something? Actually how do we know that we have actually historicized “it” or that we have conspired in reconstituting something that should never have been constituted in the first place?
I argue that our duty, as anthropologists, is to provide future practitioners (parents, teachers, etc.) with a more systematic account of the constraints which they will not be able to escape. This, I think, is what Durkheim meant when he wrote of social facts as “imposing themselves,” or what Latour now means when he writes about objects as having “agency.” What easily disappears in these statements as they have been taken for more than a century is that these are statements about the future rather than the past, or even the present. As McDermott and I put it “Culture is not a past cause to a current self. Culture is the current challenge to possible future selves” (2006:8). As I would put it today, technically, a cultural fact is a model for the set of (dis-)abling properties of the present that make a difference in some future. The task of the cultural analyst is to discern these properties and report on them in a way that makes sense to at least some of the practitioners.
Thus the task for de Wolfe, as she starts observing teachers and students in an “autistic classroom,” is to build a model of those matters that make a difference as the people she meets build a life together and, in the process, instruct her as to what actually does make a difference.
This is what I advise her to do because this is what all those who care for the children need from an anthropologist: a different account of their experiences that may provide them with new resources for the future they will make with each other.
And we should not worry if this account looks to some as a “synchronic” account. The account, if it is well done, will of course be synchronic in the Saussurian sense. Others can write about the history of autism and trace its diachronic evolution. But history, however interesting, is not quite useful because human evolution, including its cultural (linguistic) evolution is not a rational process in the narrow sense.
given arbitrariness, then instruction…
Professor fiddles with computer in full view of about 30 graduate students. Complains audibly that he can’t get rid of something on the screen. One student (or more) suggests clicking on what seems the offending screen overlay. Professor clicks there, and then clicks somewhat wildly on various options. Apparent success. The overlay shrinks. But now the cursor is wrong. A(nother? Or more) student suggests something like “click on the ‘x’ in the upper right corner. Professor complies and is satisfied with the result. Professor then uses the sequence he has thereby ended as an example of “distributed cognition.”
And now I, the professor expands on this discussion in the context of the class discussion about arbitrariness and culture. As we move from identifying the properties of a social field (culture, semiotic system, etc.) to acting within this field, the essential question then becomes: how do human beings deal with the arbitrariness of their world, including the ongoing evolution of new forms of arbitrariness. This, for a social scientist is an empirical question. For an anthropologist inspired by conversational analysis, this is also one that must be answered through examining closely instances when, arguably, people face arbitrariness in the midst of a collectivity. Thus the exemplary usefulness of the above example.
Living with computers and other such technologies involves facing on-going changes in the acts needed to accomplish simple tasks. Depending on much, this can be exciting or annoying. During a lecture, using a now unfamiliar computer, the latter is probably the most usual personal response (from watching myself and others as the carefully prepared presentation collapses more or less completely). The issue, in the context of a lecture on arbitrariness, is that in all cases, the act that will resolve the matter and get the computer to do what one expects, cannot be simply predicted. Familiarity with stylistic choices by software developers (e.g. Windows vs. Macs) can suggest where to look for the solution. But one soon discovers that familiarity can lead to dead ends (e.g. the version one is now confronting may be newer or older than the one one is used to and the sequence one has used, does not work).
In cultural anthropology and related field, the usual next step is to invoke the need to “learn” the particular encoding of the task. This is OK as far as it goes but actually does not specify how this is to happen. “Learning” is also the search for the instructions that will teach them. But instructing is not a trivial task, as Garfinkel has shown (2002).
And so, in the instance above, we have an “in-situ” instructional sequence. But it should lead to more to questions about the collective organization of the sequence than on what the professor learned (which is probably going soon to be an irrelevant bit to knowledge given probably changes in the software).
LOL
(Lots of Love?
Laughing out Loud?
Who decides? [the power question]
How does one find out? [the educational question])