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.