Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 16, No. 3.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "Malcolm Hayward" <mhayward@iup.edu> (68)
Subject: Re: 15.638 cultural divisions
[2] From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) (65)
Subject: Re: 15.638 cultural divisions
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 06:34:46 +0100
From: "Malcolm Hayward" <mhayward@iup.edu>
Subject: Re: 15.638 cultural divisions
On the issue of care in transmitting ideas across cultures: Absolutely. Or,
with this topic, pretty absolutely. As I was teaching a theory class this
semester, I was struck by how much the very structured nature of French
culture informs the background of such writers as Foucault and Althusser.
It seems kind of obvious to me now--that an ideology would seem more
determined and determining on the streets of Paris than those of New York
or Los Angeles, and yet students and probably many critics might assume our
"always already" positions are equally structured. Similarly, trying to put
Derrida's early work into a context, I mentioned May 1968. But of course my
students, most in their 20s and 30s, had no memory of those days. All of
which is to say that the "application of ideas" from one culture to another
must always be modified by as acute an historical awareness as the
teacher/writer can muster.
Malcolm Hayward
On Mon, 06 May 2002 10:57:50 +0100
"Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard
McCarty <w.mccarty@btinternet.com>)"
<willard@lists.village.virginia.edu> wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 638.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
> <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 10:55:36 +0100
> From: Willard McCarty <w.mccarty@btinternet.com>
> >
>The following mutatis mutandis applies, I think, to more than the two
>countries named:
>
>"England and France have been divided by more than the Channel: there have
>been radically different cultural traditions regarding the relations
>between theory and practice in the humanities; on the significance of
>philosophy, logic and linguistics; and more recently on the application of
>expert systems tools and ideas. Translating the literature and
>interpretations of one research community to the other involves far more
>than merely linguistic skills. The frontiers of understanding are located
>differently...."
>-- Richard Ennals, "Interpretation and codebreaking", in Interpretation in
>the Humanities: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, ed. Richard
>Ennals and Jean-Claude Gardin, Library and Information Research Report 71
>(British Library Board, 1990): 62.
>
>The differences can be great indeed -- so great that, as a colleague
>remarked to me recently, one may question making the effort at all. Let us
>say, for example, that the work of an obviously intelligent and very
>learned scholar from another cultural tradition seems utterly wrongheaded
>-- not opaque, not just strange or unfamiliar, but seriously, perhaps even
>dangerously WRONG in its goals and methods. And, to make the situation more
>interesting, let us say that this scholar's work is widely respected and
>clearly mainstream within his or her own tradition. What happens then?
>
>Are there similar problems in comparative literature, for example? This
>would seem a core problem in ethnography.
>
>Comments?
>
>Yours,
>WM
>
>
>
>Dr Willard McCarty, Senior Lecturer,
>Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London,
>Strand, London WC2R 2LS, U.K.,
>+44 (0)20 7848-2784, ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/,
>willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk, w.mccarty@btinternet.com
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 06:36:14 +0100
From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
Subject: Re: 15.638 cultural divisions
Willard,
A very French syntactic move... reversing the order of your quotation and
your question...
> Comments?
* see above *
> Are there similar problems in comparative literature, for example? This
> would seem a core problem in ethnography.
* is it a problem of understanding, communication of understanding,
communication of critique, cultural sensitivity or just plain diplomacy
and tactfulness? *
> The differences can be great indeed -- so great that, as a colleague
> remarked to me recently, one may question making the effort at all. Let us
> say, for example, that the work of an obviously intelligent and very
> learned scholar from another cultural tradition seems utterly wrongheaded
> -- not opaque, not just strange or unfamiliar, but seriously, perhaps even
> dangerously WRONG in its goals and methods. And, to make the situation more
> interesting, let us say that this scholar's work is widely respected and
> clearly mainstream within his or her own tradition. What happens then?
* how is the situation you describe any different than any
intellectual exchange in a common language? *
> The following mutatis mutandis applies, I think, to more than the two
> countries named:
* what of officially bilingual countries such as Belgium and Canada? and
what of unofficial biligualism of such states as California? there is a
limit to the application of an analogy based on the geographic proximity
of former empire states ... *
> "England and France have been divided by more than the Channel: there have
> been radically different cultural traditions regarding the relations
> between theory and practice in the humanities; on the significance of
> philosophy, logic and linguistics; and more recently on the application of
> expert systems tools and ideas. Translating the literature and
> interpretations of one research community to the other involves far more
> than merely linguistic skills. The frontiers of understanding are located
> differently...."
> -- Richard Ennals, "Interpretation and codebreaking", in Interpretation in
> the Humanities: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, ed. Richard
> Ennals and Jean-Claude Gardin, Library and Information Research Report 71
> (British Library Board, 1990): 62.
The frontiers of understanding may be located differently. It does not
follow that the paths to understanding are different except perhaps in
their empirical realization. A multi-story house with a ladder in the
pueblo fashion versus a two story house with built-in stairs versus a
skyrise appartment building with an elevator : all have a vertical axis
and a special conveyance to move from one level to the other. Different
frontiers. Same understanding (vertical, level, connection). Now,
pedagogical traditions may differently stress one or the other of the
components of the gestalt. However, whatever the pedagogical stories
recounted, hunans can "go meta".
"failures" in communication between two parties or "failures" in
comprehenison between multiple parties provide the information (like a
flock formation) which other parties can read, interpret and even on
occasion reformulate for the two or more parties to "succeed" (and thus
fail by moving certain components to the background of communication or
to the great cultural unconscious).
What on earth prompted such a two-solitudes dichotomous question? Why
would one automatically believe the account provided by the Ennals? Isn't
the definition of "linguistic" restrictive even in this context? Isn't
pragmatics a part of linguistics? I don't get the rhetoric of "this is
more difficult than mere X". It seems snobbish. I prefer a hint of modesty
as in ... It's only an omlette with a touch of tarragon. Mais quel
omlette!
N'est-ce pas?
-- Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance/pedagogy/tcc2002.htm Hand, Eye and Brain: designing for voice, vision and mind
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 07 2002 - 02:06:56 EDT