movie reflections
cryingbb
SM2022Week1-1.pdf
1. What do anthropologists (of science) do?
2. What are humans? or,
What does the sign “human” mean?
3. How does “culture” happen (in science)?
1. What do anthropologists (of science) do? They read signs.
The fundamental unit of myth (culture, meaning, narrative, ideology, folklore, “unstated
premises”…)
is the
SIGN and anything can be a sign:
a word, an image, an object…
SIGNS (myth, culture, meaning, narrative, ideology, folklore, “unstated premises”…)
❏ must be interpreted (so are open to difference)
❏ condense and relay meanings (etc.)
❏ carry force
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
ss{
Einstein actual count: 43!
You interpret the sign “scientist” within a cultural field that forces an association to the sign “Albert Einstein”
patterns
Marie Curie
Felix Hoffmann (1)
s{
Dec 27, 1999
“He was the embodiment of pure intellect, the
bumbling professor with the German accent, a
comic cliche in a thousand films…”
Myth of Science #1: Science is pure intellect.
Mythologist’s Einstein Historian’s Einstein
Barbara McClintock, 1929
Myth of Science #2: Some science is more sciencey than others.
objective harder purer
myths objective concepts ideologies
“...ideology is myth applied–it is a secondary
development, presupposing and utilizing myth. It is an ordering of the material of
myth.
“Analytically closer to ideology is a formulated public body of myths–a mythology which comes to exist
independently of ritual. Stories, fables, and proverbs lead on to formulated rules of action, constitutions,
and laws, establishing in detail the operations presumed to be required in order to maintain the social consensus. We have reached the stage of
elementary ideology.”
“Once we have reached this point, the function of ideology has altered slightly from that of myth. Both are believed to
govern social relations and to establish or maintain consensus, but in sharply different ways. The difference rests in the fact that with ideology we encounter a new
basis for claiming validity. Where myth claims validity on the basis of personal identification with its symbols,and
objective symbols are empirically verified in acts, ideologies (ideal systems) have a compulsive or cogent effect of
"objective necessity."”
“In the full scale development of ideology,acceptance of the credo is not only compulsory in a group; it is a prerequisite qualification for membership
in the group. The group is constituted by a compact of all those who subscribe to the ideology. One becomes a Jew, a Christian-or a
Communist-by accepting articles of faith.This means necessarily that ideologies tend to segregate groups from each other much more than
mythologies do. Where the basis of social consensus is the Truth, followers of falsehood must be shunned,or pitied, as infidels.”
“It is the assumption of this paper that myth and ideology continue to function side by side in modern society, and that both concepts are
essential, as a complementary analytical pair, for an understanding of the historical process.”
“...myth and ideology are anything but cleanly separable entities. The two are intermingled-myth as the origin and raw material of man's broadest beliefs about Life, ideology as the rational ordering of this material for
communication and social control. Probably, at bottom, neither could exist without the other. Yet there are cases in which one element or another in this pair so predominates that one can speak meaningfully of concrete
cultural complexes as "mythologies"or "ideologies."”
“However, it is equally plain that no established ideological structure actually accounts for that amount of functional integration in society which it theoretically rationalizes.Social control is more and different than law in
its logical application. Religion is more and different than theology in practice. Actual approved conduct is more plastic than formulated social
norms. If myth is not cultivated socially to the same extent as it once was, men still require something more than logic to achieve personal integration through their social operation…Men are also guided in their social action by mythical dramatic images which give them a feeling (a morphological
sense) for the way in which their role ought to be acted: the style and manner and the "appropriate" response on the part of the rest of the cast
and the audience.
“Modern myth images of this sort could not exercise their lodestar effect if they were merely inculcated by way of maxims and precepts. There has to
be some morphological insight so that action in this role may be spontaneously appropriate.The individual who identifies with the image of the business pioneer, the patriot, the communally-minded citizen, can gain
this insight only if he does more than operate on a mechanical, institutionalized principle. He must at least free his mind for aesthetic
contemplation of the role and for reflexive attention to himself in the role. Generally, it is considered advisable, too, to reinforce the impression with
suitable ceremonies of graduation, induction, initiation, etc…
Alan Dundes
Myth ≆ error, fallacy
“To the folklorist, a myth is first of all a narrative…”
“...the unstated premises which underlie the thought and action of a given group of people, they are not likely to appear consistently in any fixed-phrase form.”
1875 1899
“Myth” takes multiple forms and does multiple things
Some myths are in science, some myths are of science, some myths are about science. They can guide and/or mislead, be historical and/or fictional, deserve affirming and/or busting, help and/or hinder thinking and doing, become more
rigid (ideology) or become more fluid (narrative)
and so
We need multiple perspectives on myth “Myth” is understood and analyzed differently by cultural anthropologists,
linguists, folklorists, literary theorists, novelists, philosophers, and scientists themselves
Folk ideas/cultural axioms/structures/narratives of what makes science sciencey that are somewhere in your brain but nevertheless invisible
❏ science can explain many concepts in the world and is useful to know/understand
❏ science is about learning about the world around you. ❏ science is a method of understanding the world and how it works. ❏ it helps us answer a lot of our questions about the world. ❏ it’s about exploring the world around us ❏ it lets you know how the world works
All of which is also true… about history, cultural anthropology, literature, philosophy...
...depending on what we mean by
WORLD
“...we do not see the lens through which we look.” -Ruth Benedict
WORLD physical | spiritual material | mental
matter | meaning seeing | interpreting
before we even think about it we have split the
(in linguistic anthropology these are unmarked | marked
terms: “When I said world I meant physical world – matter…”)
...depending on what we mean by
MATTER
learning to read “matter” not as a word or concept but as a
SIGN
Daniel Chandler, “Semiotics for beginners,” http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html
what a sign like “matter” means is a matter of what other signs it is linked to, not something it corresponds or points
to
Daniel Chandler, “Semiotics for beginners,” http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html
Roland Barthes in the 1950s-60s develops semiology, the analysis of signs, signifying, the creation and conveyance of meaning
1. signifier: white lab coat 2. signified: idea of “the scientist”
3. sign: scientist
I. SIGNIFIER: scientist in place and in action
(sign 3)
II. SIGNIFIED: idea of “science” { III. SIGN: myth of
“scientist/science is pure, looks at things with
innocent eyes, a special person in a special place”
“...the unstated premises which underlie the thought and action of a given group of people, they are not likely to appear consistently in any fixed-phrase form.”
culture-structure-myth-folklore…
❏ cannot be seen, can only be narrated, talked about, discoursed
❏ must be interpreted (the “innocent eye” is a myth)
“...we do not see the lens
through which we
look.” -Ruth
Benedict
Mark Tansey’s sign of science
a sign is immediately meaningful and meaning is immediately interpretive and narrative
Men stand around a cow who looks at a painting of other cows. The cow stares at one cow. The men around watch and see what will happen as the cow stares.
I see a cow looking at two other cows in a painting. The one laying down looks sad. The people around look to be gathering an analysis of this cow looking at the painting. The person holding the cloth looks judgmental. I also wonder why it has such a sepia tone.
I see a cow looking at a painting of 2 cows and the cow recognizes the cow in the picture since its a cow itself. The cow is probably thinking or wondering if its actually a real cow instead of a painting. And its just staring at the painting because its probably confused.
Not what exactly is the focus of the painting, or the main point of it. However, I think it gives off a serious and somber tone regarding the outlook of the cow.
This makes me feel somewhat somber and i can’t quite pinpoint why.
2. What are humans? Or, What does the sign “human” mean? “Human” means “that creature that can’t help experience its ‘world’ as composed of
meaningful signs evoking creative interpretive narrative to share with its fellow creatures”
Why did Tansey choose to paint cows as opposed to any other animal?
The cow is confused how the other cows are one dimensional and not moving.
The cow has innocent eyes! The cow looking at the painting means something ! What does it mean reflection of one self ! The innocence of the unknown.
What we see is what we believe to be true.
I think by allowing the cow to view the painting, it gives insight to an “innocent” perspective because I believe it hints to the bloodshed of meat eating and the mess humans make of breeding cows in inhumane conditions.
The cows innocence of existence is put to test. The cow seems in the edge of coming to conscience of life, death and culture.
What seems to be happening here is humans (specifically white, educated men it looks like) are presenting a cow with a representation of itself. I think it's symbolic of humans as the arbiter of truth over all other things in the natural world. And maybe, on another level, how white, educated men have a hegemony over the creation/presentation of knowledge in our society.
I see a cow looking at a painting of 2 cows and the cow recognizes the cow in the picture since its a cow itself. The cow is probably thinking or wondering if its actually a real cow instead of a painting. And its just staring at the painting because its probably confused.
I feel like this is trying to portray our society from a different perspective. We think this is odd because the cow is looking at its own portrait. However, we do the same.
I interpret this as self-reflection. The cow is looking pensively at the painting, trying to interpret what it means to him. If I was the cow, I would be impressed by the beauty of the cow subjects, but also a little bitter that I didn't have a cow partner like the cows do in the painting. What if we're not supposed to attribute meaning to this painting? What if it's literally just a cow looking at a painting of cows, the way humans look at paintings of other humans? What if the man with the mop is there to clean up after the cow who will inevitably poop on the floor because they're a lesser species?
Maybe it is about whether the animal can recognize differences between reality and realistic presence from painting (or other means).
This painting seems to act as a mirror, one where the subject - a cow - is aiming to decipher what is real and what is not.
The interpretation of a self separate from that of the interpreter. The cow represents the self represented, the unspoken critical eye. The painted cow shows a good level of distortion:a poor representation or artistic liberty? I presume the mop is because they think the cow is dirty. It is being studied. It is being interpreted scientifically and artistically. It displays human interpretation in several forms.
I would interpret this painting as scientists studying whether or not a cow can differentiate between a painting and reality. It seems as though the people around the cow are observing the cow’s reaction to seeing an animal, like itself, on a painting. Maybe the scientists wanted to find out if cow’s have the intelligence to understand that the painting is not real.
Next week: “the scientific method” as ideology
In what category would you place this statement?
Science? Philosophy? Anthropology? Myth? Proverb? Folk idea?
Science isn't true, but it is a way to pursue truth. It doesn't reveal truths, but it leads to better approximations.
The idea that science is true is a bit of a stretch, I would say it’s the search for truth.
Or until a paradigm shift occurs and renders all previous knowledge BS.
"Science" has been wrong numerous times throughout history. Just saying.
Some scientists believe in wormholes, others do not.
That of course is true of everything true. Belief/non-belief have little to do with true/not true.
Well, I can 'make' a 'truth' without any science at all. Put a coke can on a table, 'coke on table' is 'true'.
That's your opinion....lol
