Fieldnote:
Mar 11, 2009 09:20:41 AM, WIFE wrote on an email:
What does “lol” or “l.o.l.” mean?
[DAUGHTER-in_Law responds]
Laugh
Out
Loud
Rolling
On the
Floor
Laughing
Laughing
My
A**
Off
Those are the 3 most common ways to say you think something is drop dead funny
The questioning message was prompted by an exchange between Professor and Wife as they disputed what ‘LOL’ stood for. For wife, this was obvious: “‘LOL’ stands for ‘Lots of Love’.” Professor was quite sure that it stood for “Laugh out Loud.” So Daughter-in-Law was asked for instruction.
Her answer is unambiguous, but a professor cannot let matters stand. Who says that ‘LOL’ stands for ‘Laugh Out Loud’? Does Daughter-in-Law settle the matter? Or is it ‘everybody’ these days? Was wife ‘ignorant’? Or simply not very powerful on this matter? And what is ‘LOL’ made up of, in any event? What are the contexts in which it appeared and in which the dominant mode of interpretation appeared?
Continue reading ‘LOL’: on the construction of a cultural fact →
Fieldnote:
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.
Continue reading given arbitrariness, then instruction… →
I am experimenting here with a blog that would relate to a class I am currently teaching. This Spring 2009, I am teaching Communication and Culture. It will mostly consist of thoughts than came to me after finishing a lecture. It is often the case that, while walking home, I wonder whether this or that point needed to be made more systematically.
For example, after the class on Saussure, and partially in response to a question about change and education, it came to me again that, at this point, it is what he started when emphasizing the arbitrariness of the sign is most relevant to the future of anthropological theory about culture and education, along with what he had to say about syntagms. Of course, I take arbitrariness much beyond where Saussure stopped, and will include all matters of classification (including the classification of human beings) as well as matters of processes (e.g. schooling as a means of socialization into participation). By direct implication, this means that arbitrariness unfolds in time and involves a possibly very large number of persons. It also implies that the very arbitrariness of the process will reveal itself continually to participants and so that they will have to keep telling each other what to do next (or what they should have done, etc.). This then directly ties to the major concern of ethnomethodology with ordering as an ongoing process.
Continue reading more on arbitrariness →
Musings about possibilities in the scholarly life of a professor of education and anthropologist