Skip to main content

Critical Discourse Analysis

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Critical Discourse Analysis is a study of LANGUAGE, IDEOLOGY, POWER and SOCIAL CHANGE. ‘Discourse analysis is not a “level” of analysis as, say, phonology or lexico-grammar, but an exploration of how “texts” at all levels work within sociocultural practices,’ says Candlin in the Preface to Fairclough. If you didn’t already gauge from the title then take this as your warning: this entry contains high levels of academic language. It is also disjointed and includes a lot of quotes (because I’m lazy).

‘One crucial condition for social interaction in general and talk in particular is that people understand each other. This is possible only if we assume that social members have socially shared interpretation procedures for social actions, for example, categories, rules and strategies.’ (Dijk, 1985:2)

Critical Discourse Analysis is one of the “tools” I mentioned a few entries ago that can be useful for understanding the “taken for granted” systems of knowledge that we use in order to communicate. As such it helps us view the world in a more reflexive way – which not only makes people watching more interesting, it empowers us to interact with our reality in new and wonderful ways…

Critical Discourse Analysis involves looking at the “texts” that make up our realities, questioning their assumptions, identifying underlying ideologies, the connection between language and social-institutional practices, and how these connect to formation and maintenance of power structures (like The Pyramid).

These so-called “texts” range from books to movies, TV commercials, news stories, dinner conversations, education, parent-child relations, business meetings, and jokes. A “text” in this context is anything involving a communicative language – verbal and non-verbal.

Learning about this tool illuminates the ginormous impact that “texts” that surround us have on our lived experiences; how they operate as the key forces behind both maintaining status quo structures, and the initiation of social change.

Critical Discourse Analysis is intended to ‘critique some of the premises and the constructs underlying mainstream studies in sociolinguistics, conversational analysis and pragmatics, to demonstrate the need of these sub-disciplines to engage with social and political issues of power and hegemony in a dynamic and historically informed manner… to re-engage with central constructs of power and knowledge, and above all, ideology, to question what is this “real world” of social relations in institutional practices that is represented linguistically.’ (Fairclough, 1995:viii)

Critical Discourse Analysis might look at labels like “terrorist” and “counter-terrorist”, or “ally” and “enemy”… and examine not only the term, but how it is used by different people in different ways. The definition and use of terms such as these are clearly dependent upon which side you are on.

Take for example this funny clip:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNbfIPrrCQ[/youtube]

What might this tell us about the propaganda techniques of Neo-Conservatives? Or could this clip itself be propaganda against them?

So… what does Critical Discourse Analysis involve?

Dijk explains that ‘a typical ethnographical analysis of speech events features, for example, a description of the discourse genre, the overall delimination, social function, or label of the whole speech event, the topic (theme or reference), the setting (time and physical environment), the different categories for participants, the purpose of the interaction, the type of code (spoken, written, etc.), the lexicon and the semantics, the grammar (also at the discourse level), the sequences of acts (both verbal and nonverbal), and the underlying rules, norms or strategies for the actions or the whole event… And even this enumeration is not complete.’ (Dijk, 1985:9)

‘The method of discourse analysis includes linguistic description of the language text, interpretation of the relationship between the (productive and interpretative) discursive processes and the social processes.’ (Fairclough, 1995:97)

Fairclough refers to Mandel (1978) to describe the “postmodernist” features of “late capitalist” discourse that includes “post-traditional relationships” with relationships based upon authority in decline, both in the public and personal domain, for example, when it comes to kinship and self-identity ‘rather than being a feature of given positions and roles’ they are ‘reflexively build up through a process of negotiation’. Also the development of a “promotional” and “consumer” culture – with our strong emphasis on market and consumption rather than production. It is difficult not to be involved oneself in promoting because it’s part of so many people’s jobs and because it self-promotion is now part of our personal identity. (Fairclough, 1995:137-8).

Fairclough is calling for a critical social and historical turn. ‘It would seem vital that people should become more aware and more self-aware about language and discourse. Yet levels of awareness are very low. Few people have even an elementary metalanguage for talking about and thinking about such issues. A critical awareness of language and discursive practices is, I suggest, becoming a prerequiste for democratic citizenship, and an urgent priority for language education in than the majority of the population (certainly of Britain) are so far form having achieved it.’ (Fairclough, 1995:140).

Textual analysis involves two complementary types of analysis: linguistic and intertextual – that are a ‘necessary complement’ to each other.

‘Whereas linguistic analysis shows how texts selectively draw upon linguistic systems (again, in an extended sense), intertextual analysis shows how texts selectively draw upon orders of discourse – the particular configurations of conventionalised practices (genres, discourses, narratives, etc.) which are available to text producers and interpreters in particular circumstances…’ (Fairclough, 1995:188)

Texts are dependent on society and history in the form of the resources available but intertextual analysis is dynamic and dialectical in that the texts themselves can ‘transform these social and historical resources,’ “re-accentuate” genres and mix genres in texts. ‘Language is always simultaneously constitutive of (i) social identities, (ii) social relations and (iii) systems of knowledge and belief – though with different degrees of salience in different cases.’ (Fairclough, 1995:131)

Fairclough suggests developing “Critical Language Awareness” (CLA). It is important to try to increase the reflexive capacity of individuals.

Fairclough describes education as not only ‘a key domain of linguistically mediated power’ but is also a ‘site for reflection upon and analysis of the sociolinguistic order and the order of discourse’ by equipping learners with a critical language awareness as a ‘resource for intervention in and the reshaping of discursive practices and the power relations that ground them, both in other domains and within education itself.’ (1995:217)

With mass media generally acknowledged as the ‘single most important social institution in bringing off these processes in contemporary societies’ Fairclough recognises that ‘we also live in an age of great change and instability in which the forms of power and domination are being radically reshaped, in which changing cultural practices are a major constituent of social change which in many cases means to a significant degree changing discursive practices, changing practices of language use.’ (1995:219)

I think its encouraging to remember that society and culture are ALWAYS changing, language is ALWAYS evolving, and power structures are ALWAYS shifting. And I suppose we should be thankful that developed capitalist countries exercise their power typically through ‘consent rather than coercion’, ‘ideology rather than through physical force’ and through ‘the inculcation of self-disciplining principles rather than through the breaking of skulls’. If I’m going to be controlled, I definitely prefer it to be in this way.

References:

Norman Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis : The Critical Study of Language (London ; New York: Longman, 1995).

Dijk, Teun Adrianus van, Handbook of Discourse Analysis Book 3, (London ; Orlando: Academic Press, 1985).

Picture:

Taken from Fairclough (1995) p. 135.

Academic, Truth,

You, the Anthropologist, tuning your skills

Written by Juliet Bennett
1 Comment

Do you ever sit there, on a park bench, at the beach, or even out of your car window, and simply observe the people that walk by? What are they wearing? What do their facial expressions and body language tell you? Do you ever put words in other peoples mouths? Guessing what they are talking about.

A couple bickering. “Why are you always like that?” “You never listen.” “That’s because all you do is complain…”

A dude trying to pick up a chick. “How you doin?” “Piss off!” “Come on…” “Seriously, piss off!”

In a park in Lima, Peru, there were none of such stories. Everywhere I looked I saw stories of love:

An elderly couple reminiscing the past.

A young couple planning their future.

“You know what I’m going to do for you tonight?!”

It can be fun to imagine what is going on in others’ worlds. These interpretations tend to be based on things that have gone on in our own world, either things we have experienced directly through relationships and events, or indirectly through television shows, movies, books etc.

If you do this, then you are a social scientist, an anthropologist, a studier of people. For anyone who enjoys a little people watching, the tools I will share over the next week or so will allow you to gain deeper insights to the things you observe – both in your observations of others, and in your observations of your self.

Earlier this year I was writing about some of the gaps that I have observed:

– a gap between education at school and real life

– a gap in how knowledge is distributed between rich and poor, between academia and public, between governments and their people…

– a gap between those who gain the monetary profit from corporations and those held responsible for the corporations’ non-monetary costs to people and environment

Some of my entries over the next couple of months will be looking at how these gaps might be bridged. I will be approaching challenge by looking at the materials I’ve been researching these last six months, trying to interpret the academic jargon into everyday langugae, and apply it to everyday situations, like the people-watching scenario above.

A word of warning: while endevoring to interpret the jargon, these entries still contain it. If you feel alarmed, don’t worry, you’re not alone. Words like “Hegemony” and “Heuristics” and “Foucaultian” and “Phenomenology” almost scared me away from academia altogether. It’s worth pushing through – these words are quite illuminating and worth putting the time in to understand them.

What I will try to do is define these terms the first time I use them, and refer back to that entry when I use them later. If it’s hard to follow I suggest a quick Wiki-search – grab a quick definition, and see if it makes sense. Feel free to leave your questions in the comments  section about areas I haven’t explained so well and I’ll come back to it and try. It’s really important to me to develop my communication skills so when you see them please help me by point out my owns gaps – I would really appreciate it.

The “Intellectual Toolkit” (as one of my supervisors calls it) that I will share includes a selection of methodologies, big thinker’s theories, and key debates, that are appropriate for my research in the social and political sciences.

  • “Critical Discourse Analysis”
  • “Phenomenology”
  • “Narrative Inquiry”
  • The “Agency / Structure” debate (Foucault’s views on the Power)
  • Social Construction Theories (Paulo Freire’s ideas in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”; Berger and Luckman’s ideas on “The Social Construction of Reality”; and Norman K. Denzin’s ideas on “Auto-Ethnography” )

As I have discovered each of these tools and perspectives, I have felt my eyes open to new ways understanding the people and world around me. I am coming to see how language builds stories which builds identities, culture, and worldviews, which all in all provide a context from which we come to understand the relationship between our individual realities and the Reality beyond.

I hope that by sharing this information you might enhance your people watching too!

Academic, Truth

Is “God” a Fractal?

Written by Juliet Bennett
22 Comments

When I inside and outside my “self”, I see one thing: fractals. Fractals explain to me the microcosm and the macrocosm that our cells, bodies, societies, galaxies, and possibly universes and beyond, are a part of.

Have you seen the “Power of Ten” clip? This is a MUST. It zooms out at the power of 10 every second out to the edge of our universe and then zooms into through to the quantum quark inside your hand. Out of every youtube clip I’ve ever posted on this blog, this is my favourite:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0[/youtube]

Compare this adventure in our universe to the Mandelbrot Fractal Adventure I last week and tell me what you think … are we fractals?

This is one more clip worth watching that explores this question:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE2EiI-UfsE[/youtube]

Fractal patterns seem to surround us as far out into the universe and as deep into our cells as far as our technology allows us to see.

From relationships within cells to between cells, within people to between people, within societies to between societies, within nations to between nations, within our planet, solar system, galaxy, universe – there are clear patterns: patterns of complexity and nothingness, of ones and zeros, of peace and conflict, patterns of a dance between polar opposites that are two sides to one coin.

In bridging finite (area) with infinite (perimeter), does the fractal pattern provide a metaphor of how what seems impossible, actually be possible? What implications might this have for philosophical discussions about good and evil, determinism vs in-determinism, individualism vs in-separateness?

Is what some people call “God”, a personification of the fractal?

Is it just me or is the idea of fractals an incredible way to think about the connection between our cells, our universe, and our “selves”!!!

Image taken from http://bidhanr.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/fractals/

 

Truth, ,

The Koch Snowflake: Fractals

Written by Juliet Bennett
4 Comments

A fractal is a shape that you can split into parts, zoom in, and discover the same or similar shape, times infinity. It’s almost magic, this pattern which extends outward and inward, seemingly to infinity. I’ll use the Koch Snowflake among others examples of fractals to introduce what I find a very exciting concept it to you.

If this is the first you’ve heard of fractals, the best introduction is the Mandelbrot Fractal Adventure:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYYQuspB8j4[/youtube]

Let’s look at a few in nature:

Lungs [1]

Trees [2]

Ferns [3]

Cauliflower [4]

Blood vessels [5]

Lightning [6]

Closer look at lightning

And closer still

Oceanwaves [7]

The pattern of of and inside the wave:

Coastlines [8]

How does a fractal work?

Let’s look at a snowflake:

[9]

Each line is divided into three and an additional line to the same length added. This is then done to the next set of lines, and the next set, and so on to infinity. The last youtube clip in this entry gives a more detailed description of this process.

The mountain example is pretty cool too:

[10]

This guy does a great job explaining the mathematics behind it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWOngYTC-2E[/youtube]

“Fractals demonstrate an infinite perimeter with a finite area” – now that’s an idea to ponder for a while…

References & sources:

[1] Lungs http://gaiathelivingearth.blogspot.com/2009/07/fractals-in-nature.html

[2] Trees

Fractal tree, made from using a “Lindenmayer system”.This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Solkoll.

[3] Fern http://www.rogerolivella.net/insula/en/descripcio.htm

[4] Cauliflower http://www.math.toronto.edu/~drorbn/Gallery/Plants/Cauliflower-1.html

[5] Blood vessels http://www.lionden.com/fractal_body.htm

[6] Waves http://mathpaint.blogspot.com/2008/06/fractal-waves.html

[7] Lightning – the last two also by Solkoll the first from a blog site that didn’t have copyright – if anyone knows who I should attribute it to please let me know.

[8] Coastlines http://bidhanr.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/fractals/

[9] Fractal Snowflake Graphic by António Miguel de Campos (self made based in own JAVA animation) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

[10] Fractal Mountain Graphic by António Miguel de Campos (self made based in own JAVA animation) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Also good reference is: Mandelbrot, B.B. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Truth,

What makes a life worthy? Optimal trajectory and not fearing death.

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

‘I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil,’ says Socrates in Plato’s Apology as he stands by his virtues right till the end. For Socrates, a worthy life is one lived in accordance with (what he would call it had he seen The Men Who Stare At Goats) one’s optimal trajectory.

Socrates, right through till his death, acts according to what he sees to be the “will of the divine agencies”. He is not looking to some super-powerful person in the sky, or a mythic personification of some human quality on earth, but he looks to connect to some perspective outside himself, accessed via the voice inside.

In following this path Socrates teaches us the importance of seeking the highest virtues, and placing wisdom before our our private interests. Call it the “will of God” or “the signs of the universe” or simply “intuition”, Socrates values a life that is is self-aware, self-critical, self-confident and connects action with faith.

Today I will focus on the question my philosophy mentor posed when he recommended I read Plato’s Apology: What does Socrates believe makes a life a good/worthy one?

Close to his death, when asked to recommend a penalty, Socrates says,

‘I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I? Because I am afraid for the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil?…’

He ponders options of prison, and exile, and says, ‘I must indeed be blinded by the love of life if I were to consider that when you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would have fain have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely… Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue?…’

And here he tells about his values and living out his optimal trajectory, even if this trajectory leads to death:

‘Now I have a great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examine myself and others, and that the life unexamined is not worth living – that you are still less likely to believe. And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you.’

After the jury then condemns him to death, Socrates says: ‘I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death… The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.’

Socrates talks about how to follow one’s optimal trajectory – listening to that deep intuitive feeling that warns you not to do something, and letting this guide your actions:

‘I should like to tell you of a wonderful circumstance. Hitherto the familiar oracle within me has constantly been in the habit of opposing me even about trifles, if I was going to make a slip or error about anything; and now as you see there has come upon me that which may be thought, and is generally believed to be, the last and worst evil. But the oracle made no sign of opposition, either as I was leaving my house and going out in the morning, or when I was going up into this court, or while I was speaking, at anything which I was going to say; and yet i have often been stopped in the middle of a speech; but now in nothing I either said or did touching this matter has the oracle opposed me. What do I take to be the explanation of this? I will tell you. I regard this as a proof that what has happened is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error.‘

Now he goes on to tell us why he doesn’t fear death:

‘There is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: – either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain…

if evernight is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this?… Above all I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not.’

Socrates values are noble and wise. He says he ‘never had the wit to be idle during his whole life; but has been careless of what the many care about – wealth, and family interests, and military offices, and speaking in the assembly, and magistracies, and plots, and parties. Reflecting that I was really too honest a man to follow in the way and live, I did not go where I could do no good to you or to myself; but where I could do the greatest good privately to everyone of you, thither I went, and sought to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the state before he looks to the interests of the state; and that this should be the order which he observes all his actions.’

Although by the sound of The Symposium I think Socrates didn’t mind the occasional party 🙂

Socrates did not die in vain. Through his ideas and conviction, Socrates inspired Plato and many-a-philosophers, religious thinkers and people like you and me, to not blindly accept authorities, institutions and ideas, but to question them. Science and philosophy are Socratic legacies that allow us to examine the world around us, and distinguish truth from fallacy, while acknowledging the great limitations of our knowledge.

Socrates lived his life in sync with the energies of the universe, living out what he believed to be the will of the divine agencies (that he did not believe was some old man in the sky), right through to his death.

If you take one thing from this long list of quotes, please take away Socrates’ request. He asks the jury that if, when his sons are grown up, ‘they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing, – then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing.’

Seeing as we are all (at least the majority of Western mentalities) are sons of Socrates, I think this is good advice. We should take Socrates advice, look around us, and at ourselves, see if there is anything we value more than virtue, and whether we are pretending to be something we are not… and if the answer is yes to either question then ask ourselves WHY? Is this our optimal trajectory, or is our intuition telling us there’s another path we might be better to follow?

Picture – from The Men Who Stare At Goats – it may not have received the best reviews, but I thought it was hilarious!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC2TzspJn5A[/youtube]

Truth,

Who is hot, who is not? Socrates decifers the Truth

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

I want to kick off a mini Socratic series with a quirky YouTube clip staring Socrates and Plato: Who is hot, and who is not?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5tJV74Bew8[/youtube]

If I wasn’t studying philosophy I think it’d be quite rare to think “today I’m going to read about Socrates death sentence in Plato’s Apology”… but seeing as I am studying it, and seeing as reading Plato is an absolute delight, I thought in the next couple of posts I’d share my thoughts and favourite quotes with you on Socrates. 

When you read the words of Socrates, (through the written works of Plato) it is easy to see the wisdom he is so famous for. With humility and a few questions, Socrates makes sharp criticisms of the arrogant ignorance of other’s claims to wisdom.

Socrates walks around the streets of Athens asking people questions about life, war, justice and wisdom. He develops a reputation for being wise, yet this he denies:

‘The persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom, which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character… I know that I have no wisdom, small or great..’

This Alain de Botton doco is great for imagining the scene of ugly Socrates pissing off the elites in Athens:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2rsiER-OnU[/youtube]

Part 2 – gotta love the Aussie accents… trust us happy Aussies to be the only ones answering questions about being happy 🙂

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28VIz9gg0po[/youtube]

Socrates encourages others to develop the confidence to question in times of conformity – he encourages us not to be blind sheep. Socrates teaches people in his society (and still in ours) that they are all capable to question, to overcome their lazy tendency to accept and conform, and to analyse the world and figure out what they really make of life, the universe and everything.

Socrates sought out those who were famous for their wisdom, and on questioning them discovers that they also know nothing. He concludes that he must be better off than they because at least he is aware of his lack of knowledge, which is one step ahead of those who think they know but don’t:

‘So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows.’

Of course, those wise people Socrates shows are not wise get a little peeved off. Those in power who Socrates shows don’t have genuine reasons for their actions, feel their authority being threatened by his questioning.

It’s not so unlike Wikileaks and the case of Julian Assange – when The Pyramid is challenged, those at the top aren’t too happy.

The five steps to good thought via the Socratic Method (quoting Alain de Botton in his documentary)

1. “Look around you for statements people would describe as plain common sense, for example, that the best jobs are those which are most highly paid, or that that happiness comes from being married.”

2. “Try to find an exception to this, could you ever be married and yet unhappy, or could you be in a very well paid job and yet miserable?

3. “If an exception to your statement is found, then it must mean that your statement is false, or at least imprecise.”

4. “Try to nuance the first statement to take the exception into account, so in our example realise that it is possible to be unhappy in a highly paid job that’s completely creatively unfulfilling, or to be miserable in a marriage if you’ve married the wrong person.”

5. “You continue this process for as long as possible, you keep trying to find exceptions to your common sense statement. And Socrates says that the truth, in so far as anyone is ever able to reach the truth, lies in a statement that it seems is impossible to disprove.”

Part 3 of Alain’s doco gives some context for Socrates trial:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNaeL7vdax8[/youtube]

Even his ‘ingenious riddle’ can’t save Socrates. Accused of the crime of encouraging the youth not to believe in the gods Plato writes this dialogue between Socrates and Meletus (a politician in power):

‘Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings? … Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?

– He cannot.

I am glad that I have extracted that answer… but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; is not that true? Yes, that is true, for i may assume that your silence gives assent to that. Now what are spirits or demigods? Are they not either gods or the sons of gods? Is that true?

– Yes, that is true.

But this is just the ingenious riddle of which I was speaking: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I don’t believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods.’

Socrates makes such a good case for himself. The jury even agree to his logic and yet their own insecurities seem to cause them to find him guilty and condemn him to death.

I guess no matter how good  your logic, you can’t beat The Pyramid. You can’t win people via rational argument, you win them through emotions. Socrates fails to appeal to what the judge’s insecurities required of him – to cry and beg and promise to stop. Socrates knew this path was not the one he was supposed to take, so he held strong and proud of his claim to fame that: all we really know is that we know nothing. But more on this tomorrow.

…

“So it’s settled, Jessica Simpson is hot, high waisted jeans are not, and once again the Socratic Method arrives at the truth!”

…

Short personal note:

Coming across this Alain de Botton documentary on YouTube reminded me of his entire Philosophy as a Guide to Happiness series that I originally watched with my Opa a couple of years ago. I’d turn it on and my Opa would promptly fall asleep. Ah good memories. Interesting to remember this and see the seeds planted for the love of philosophy I have today.



Truth,

Why does a JOKER trump four Kings? On Wit, Wisdom, and Whitehead.

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

Have you ever wondered why one Joker can beat four Kings. I mean, what does a joker have, besides a funny hat? How does a character based on the Fool, kick all these kings’ asses?

I have been considering the relationship between seriousness and sarcasm, peace and tragedy, efforts to conserve and the innate drive to create… I think there is some kind of answer to this riddle here, somewhere, among far too many ideas I am juggling in my head.

Alfred North Whitehead, my current philosophy hero, writes:

‘Satire is the last flicker of originality in a passing epoch as it faces the onroad of staleness and boredom. Freshness has gone: bitterness remains.’ p277

Whitehead writes this at a time just after the First World War had blown apart many-a-person’s optimism. He questions what it means to be “civilized” and whether the West is in rise or decline. As he looks through history, at civilisations that have crumbled, and he says that it is satire – which in my analogy I am relating to the joker – is the last thing/man standing.

I love Whiteheads philosophies mainly because of their witty blatant honesty, and because he articulates so many of my values.

In his book Adventures of Ideas, he gives an exquisite account of Peace making it clear he is not talking about the “negative conception of anesthesia” or any limiting political notion of one nation’s peace at another’s peril. He says:

‘The experience of Peace is largely beyond the control for purpose. It comes as a gift. The deliberate aim at Peace very easily passes into its bastard substitute, Anesthesia. In other words, in the place of a quality of “life and motion,” there is substituted their destruction. Thus Peace is the removal of inhibition and not its introduction.’ p284

In the pursuit of peace it is easy to stop when one reaches a state of decadence – but that is where the peace becomes anesthetic, and everything in life starts its slow decline.

Peace is the antithesis of such anesthesia.

Whitehead is a “Process Philosopher” – he sees everything in the world in constant flux, always changing, always becoming.

Peace too is a process, not a final result. You “do” peace – you don’t “find” it, at least not until you die.

One of the signs to look for is REPETITION.

‘Repetition produces a gradual lowering of vivid appreciation. Convention dominates. A learned orthodoxy suppresses adventure.’ p276

We need to learn, and couple our new knowledge with reflectivity. We need to take the learned orthodoxy and make it our own. We need to take society’s conventions and go on some adventure with them. Rather than repeating the past, and lowering our appreciation for it, we need to change it – make every day different, make every moment a new one.

‘No static maintenance of perfection is possible. This axiom is rooted in the nature of things. Advance or Decadence are the only choices offered to mankind. The pure conservative is fighting against the essence of the universe.‘ p273

When you read my words, and the words I quote from Whitehead, I’m sure you agree with parts and disagree with other parts. It is this process of critical examination that we come to learn where we stand. We cannot know one without the other. Even the words I type are not static. When they leave my mind, go through my fingers, and are posted on the internet, they take on a life of their own. It is in your reading of them, and your interpretation of them, that they take on new meaning. Nothing in this universe is static.

Whitehead, like myself, equates Peace with Creativity, with Beauty and Truth and Adventure and Art. Whitehead, and I agree, believes that Tragedy also has an important role to play.

‘Decay, Transition, Loss, Displacement belong to the essence of the Creative Advance. The new direction of aim is initiated by Spontaneity, an element of confusion. The enduring Societies with their rise, culmination, and decay are devices to combine the necessities of Harmony and Freshness.‘ p284-5

‘Peace is the understanding of tragedy, and at the same time its preservation.’ p284

Peace involves both the harmonizing AND the clashing of people and ideas, in a societies’ various pursuits for satisfaction. 

Peace is Freedom. Peace is the freedom to pursue satisfaction, and the freedom to stop and decline or to define a new challenge when you get there. The adventure is ongoing, the evolution continues forever.

‘Without adventure civilization is in full decay.’ p278

You may notice a recent Whiteheadian influence on my blog as I absorb his categories and concepts and synthesize them with my own.

Although written 80 years ago, Whitehead’s ideas and insights are still relevant – and I think as much as the five qualities of Truth, Beauty, Adventure, Art and Peace apply to analyzing our society and civilization as whole, they also apply to our individual lives.

When I look at my life and the lives of people around me I wonder:

  • Does capitalism promote creativity or strip us of it?
  • Compared to past civilizations, are we more original or less?
  • What percentage of our  daily life is stale and boring?
  • What percentage of our lives is adventurous, spontaneous and novel?
  • Are we a people and a civilization on the rise, or in decline?
  • Is our satirical humor a sign that our kingdom will soon fall?
  • Is that why the Joker beats four Kings?

My eclectic choice in friendships reflects a value of laughter over money, a sense of humour over security, and witty wisdom over swords, politics and inhibitive institutions.

Clearly in my psyche the Joker trumps the King – how about in yours?

References:

All quotes are from Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, Cambridge University Press, 1964. Originally published in 1933 in London.
Picture:
Excerpt with that exemplary story of wit and wisdom came from A. H. Johnson, The Wit and Wisdom of Whitehead, Philosophy of Science. Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul., 1946), pp. 223-251.
Academic, Truth

Stories, Boxes, and Things that Don’t Fit

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

Christmas is full of stories and boxes, as are our lives. Every day, in every interaction, and in almost every thought, we seek to put the things we see, hear, smell, taste or feel in categorical boxes, and attach stories to them.

For a simple example think about the smells when your mum is cooking dinner – attached to that smell might be a story about the future taste and the soon-to-come experience of eating it at a table with loved ones.

We tell stories about people based on their race, religion, jobs, level of education, style of clothes, and even the suburb they live.

Why do we feel a need to box everything?

Are these boxes useful? How much truth is contained in the stories attached?

Boxes and their attached stories might give us an indication about the future, a story with a certain probability of manifestation, but a nice smelling dinner doesn’t guarantee it’s taste.

Even our life stories tend to fall into boxes. Our psyche is basically programmed to choose from the available cultural myths and live out one of them – the only difference between us is that our stories are acted out by a different set of characters and slightly varied themes and plots.

What kind of life myth boxes am I talking about? Well, for example,

The “The White Picket Fence” box is probably the most prominent myth of Western culture – where one desires to find a man/woman, get married, get a mortgage, and make babies to start a new White Picket cycle.

Then there’s the “Career-Ladder Climber”, the person dedicated to getting approval of those above them and slowly moving up corporate hierarchy.

And then there’s “The Religious Devotee” who spends their lives hoping for the approval of the divine, and eternal rewards that come with it.

There’s “The Wanderer”, the vagabonds, travellers, life-long bachelors, job-hoppers – people who commit to nothing other than their strong commitment not to commit.

And the “The Artist”, the writers, musicans, painters, etc., who spends their lives making creative statements about the actions and consequences of the boxes above.

I don’t define any of these boxes with judgment attached. Of course there are many more life-story boxes than these ones. And many people probably fit into more than one box.

Boxes – categories – come naturally to our minds. Almost without thinking we put people into one box or another, depending where we view the way they prioritise their life – on whether they seem to place a higher value in Security, Money, Success, Experience, or Art.

I feel I have, at different times in my life, experienced all of these boxes. In my teens I was a Religious Devotee; studying and working in Business I was a Career Ladder Climber; when I fell in love for the first time I aspired to the White Picket Fence (I even owned soccer mum Ralph Lauren Chinos dear oh dear); then I became a Traveller, and now I’m an aspiring Writer. Hm, I’m almost a cat – five lives down, four to go…

I don’t think these boxes are tickboxes, where you can only experience one at one time. I still carry different degrees of the other boxes with me – far more Traveller, a very different interest in religion, and almost zero interest in climbing any bureaucratic hierarchies or obtaining a white picket fence.

I’m trying to remember the point I wanted to make here…

Coming back to the Christmas gift analogy, some gifts do not fit inside a box. Maybe because they are an odd shape or size or nature. For whatever reason, not every gift should be put in a box, and I think the same for people’s life myths – our lives simply don’t always fit these molds.

McAdams believes ‘Human lives are too complex for a typological approach, and too socially inflected to support any argument that says the truth resides solely within… We do not discover ourselves in myth; we make ourselves through myth.’ [1]

In more recent times I think more and more people are jumping between boxes, creating a custom-made box combining a snippets of stories as we please.

Some women Climb the Career Ladder, skip the marriage, have a kid and continue their climb.

Some Travellers give up their roaming for a White Picket while some White Pickets bulldoze the fence to become Travellers or Artists.

Most of my school friends are married but never want to have kids.

And with today’s high rates of divorce it is normal to ask “is it your first?” when one hears another is getting married.

The Postmodern era has somewhat introduced an eclectic “Pick and Mix” approach to almost everything, including our live-stories. There are many combination of boxes one’s life story might fit. And people create new boxes all the time. We no longer have to choose one and live out the whole myth.

We can now sit and look at our lives from a hypothetical vantage point outside ourselves, see at all the available stories and combine them as we please.

Are you aware of the boxes you get put in, and the boxes you put others in? How do you box and add stories to things and experiences? What does your custom-made life-story box look like?

Photo

I bet you can’t find me in there. I’m there though… it was taken at a Church Youth Camp in 1996.

The camp’s motto “Let God Out Of The Box” is kinda ironic considering I don’t remember the camp considering the box they were putting “God” inside.

Theists (and atheists) seem to box God in the image of a Divine King on a thrown in the sky that will punish you if you are bad and reward you if you are good. Yet, at the same time, theists tend to conceive of “Him” more abstractly as the personification of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient power… could God need to be let out of the Santa-Claus-like judge medieval box?

If religious and non-religious allowed their minds space to reflect on the boxes they put “God” inside, and to consider the question: “What is this thing we call God?” I wonder what we might discover. Could “God” not be something that you either believe in, or you don’t – could “God” simply be everything that is? When we die could we return to our the “oneness with God” where we came from, that is oneness with the universe, with heaven and hell states of being here on earth? Could the boxes we have created with our language (and history’s misinterpretations and manipulations) be distracting us from an underlying truth? I digress.

As we come up to the new year I wonder: is there anything we might like to let out of the box?

References:

[1] Dan P. McAdams, The Stories We Live By : Personal Myths and the Making of the Self (New York: Guilford Press, 1996). P12-13

Truth,

Flying like ducks

Written by Juliet Bennett
Leave a Comment

All my life I have had a tendency to “go with the wind” so to say. It hasn’t been a completely submissive relationship. It sounds strange to say but the wind has tended to listen to my requests.  It blows me around a little but eventually it tends to deliver me to my desired destination.

This clip of these cute little ducks reminded me of my journey.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEBLt6Kd9EY[/youtube]

At times these ducks get so knocked around that you worry the wind could kill them. But it’s gentle enough. The ducklings fall down and roll around, but they do (eventually) get back up again.

That has been my experience with the wind of life too. Sometimes it is so rough that you think you’re outta here. But then it stops throwing you around and like the mother duck leads, a door opens or a light goes on, and you continue on your way.

Truth