Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:42:56 -0800 (PST) From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain-AT-igc.apc.org> Subject: Re: M-TH: being determines consciousness ? As you will see, my intervention does not concern your overall argument concerning the relation of being and consciousness (and the role of scientific laws in the realm of social behavior), but rather the basis of any of your claims about language that play a role in your larger argument. At 07:38 PM 2/24/98 +1100, Rob Schaap wrote: > This is where >notions like 'reification', 'mystification' and 'naturalisation' apply. >Malcontents like us seek to delegitimise such institutions, but my point >about language comes in just here. *We can only do so by deploying other >institutions*. You gotta throw 'democracy' at 'em, or 'subjecthood', or >'fairness', or 'the environment', or 'freedom' - whatever - it depends on >your diagnosis and your take on the culture within which you're trying to >strike a chord. Well, by "language", you seem to be referring specifically to concepts and terminology denoting concepts. Of course, we can only get concepts of these through the use of language: listening, reading, thinking, writing. However, we are dealing with systems of concepts here, something rather more specific than "language". >To be understood, you must operate in an *already* existing institution. >You can inculcate the notion of the dialectic, but only by reference to the >'known' - y'know, do what Novack did: apply formal logic to empirical >knowns to show the apparent changes can not be catered for or explained by >that logic. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're not referring to George Novack's shitty book on dialectics, are you? You've got to steer clear of Trotsky and Novack in these matters. >My belief that we can't predict reliably in the case of a conscious (ie. of >the actual manifestations of the exchange relation) population is muchly >rooted in the belief that language is as much a site of struggle as the >shop floor. That couldn't possibly be true, except for academics, who know nothing but the manipulation of language. Anyway, this assertion doesn't mean much to me. If it's a matter of struggling over ideologically loaded keywords: freedom, democracy, affirmative action, whatever, that's an obvious banality. If it's a matter of PC bullshit like using "she" and "her" as common sex pronouns, I disagree absolutely. Or old PC bullshit of the CP decades ago when it used to accuse and persecute its members as racists for using expressions like "black sheep" or "black-hearted". This is bullshit word magic that hasn't got shit to do with squat. I'm interested in concepts, hence in terminology, such as the terms needed to convey abstract ideas for the purposes of analysis. And while terminology is built up out of daily language, the struggle that counts is a struggle over certain semantic relationships within a complex of keywords, which is something more abstract and limited than "language". >Language is a system of meanings, some residual, some emergent >(Gramsci and Williams each said something like this) - as we reason, >institutionalise and deinstitutionalise through language, this seems >important to me. Well, actually, language is more than this, as the route to meanings lies through grammar, implying phonology (or some substitute like sign language or writing), morphology, and syntax, for starters.... I guess you're concerned over the struggle over semantics as relates to the systems of meanings behind words. This is part of the study of language, but only a part. >Here endeth my unsubstantiated rave. If Ralph wants to talk scientific >linguistics, he might start the ball rolling by articulating the premises >he sees as important. I would suggest that what you have to say about language is rather limited. I don't have much to say that bears upon what concerns you. However, your treatment of the importance of language seems rather trivial. Of course, because concepts are embedded in the language we use, whenever we struggle over ideas, we are involved with language. Does this mean you have something deep to say about language? No. Now, linguists have studied historical semantic shifts in keywords. For example, many centuries ago the word "rude" had an ideological meaning that no longer exists for us. I believe it had associations with illiteracy and the distinction between clerics and the peasants. You probably didn't know this, but you do know that something similar is still present with the word "vulgar", which can refer both to class--the common people--or crudity and lack of refinement. The word "common" itself can be used in a judgmental sense, though such usage is rather quaint and rarely heard in my neck of the woods. I don't have much to say now except to suggest that you define precisely what you mean and not make exaggerated claims about "language" as a whole. And if you dare to cite linguistic astrologers like Barthes or Derriduh as authorities, I'll wipe the floor with you. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005