Skip to main content

two schematics: social creativity and phatic communication

It occurred to me that these two images make an interesting pair.

The first one is from the 2015 paper about "Patterns of Peeragogy" and gives a map of ways around creating-the-social.

Briefly, the spirit of the map above is to say that we should look for the foundations of social creativity by a regression to the creation of the social. It gives some hints about what we expect to find constituting this Ur-Creative / Ur-Social level.

The second map is from our joint "Afterword" draft, with the core image itself extracted from an earlier slide deck "A Schematization of Phaticity".

In terms of theoretical levels, the second map is still one level deeper than the one above.   As used here, it suggests that each pre-social attitude, factor, or dimension is rooted in feelings or sentiments.  Thus, for example, we might describe the feelings of a newcomer (nervousness, self-doubt, curiosity, and so forth) as well as feelings towards a newcomer (compassion; superiority; maternal, paternal, avuncular, fraternal or sororal instincts; pastoral care, etc.).
I'd suggest that it could be interesting to develop a semiotic/phatic "reading" of social creativity, by applying the sign-function microscrope from the 2nd diagram to the 1st diagram.

Note: the "microscope" has several different "lenses" -- Malinowski seems to set everything very close to "zero" -- whereas La Barre sets things to "one", i.e., one "generalized emotional tone."  And Jakobson fragments the unity of a channel into relationships among several signals.

In short, the first diagram presents a sort of anatomy without covering dynamics, and the second diagram gives the basis for studying dynamics but in itself isn't tied to any particular domain.  It could be an interesting exercise to combine them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Extra channels

In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model.

RJ schematized

I schematized Roman Jakobson's definition of the phatic function, and upon looking at it for a while thought that I either drew a fish or a side-view of Jakobson's face, the left column being either a back-fin or Einsteinian scientist-hair, and the upper triangle in both cases serving as an eye. I'm slowly making progress with the paper on RJ's phatic function.

Metacommunicative cues

In the previous post on Extra channels I finished with a distinction between diachronic and synchronic metacommunication. In this post I'd like to respond to some comments by the co-author of this blog, Joe, in some of his previous posts, by invoking Jurgen Ruesch's concept of metacommunication . Gregory Bateson was interested in thinking about cybernetics, but didn't seem to feel constrained to think about it using a strictly computational or information-theoretic paradigm, while still being informed by the ideas. This gave him the freedom to talk about ideas like "context", "relationship", "learning", and "communication" without needing to define them in precise computational terms. Nevertheless, he handles the ideas fairly rigorously. (Joe, Phatic Workshop: towards a μ-calculus ) Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch, among many other notable thinkers, were part of the Palo Alto Group of researchers tasked to apply new methods (a