Comments on: Structure and Function in Information Operations http://marctyrrell.com/2008/06/29/structure-and-function-in-information-operations/ Being in the main the musings of a Symbolic Anthropologist Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:46:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: admin http://marctyrrell.com/2008/06/29/structure-and-function-in-information-operations/comment-page-1/#comment-41 admin Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:40:46 +0000 http://marctyrrell.com/?p=35#comment-41 Hi Jim, There have been some moderately decent attempts at creating models of this stuff. They're not easy, but they can be done :). You asked "is this a case of sloppy language, or do you mean to say that cultures themselves think?" It's an interesting question, and I could make an argument that cultures "think" - that's partially what Durkheim was talking about with his concept of the conscience collectif. It's also Anthro "shorthand" ;). You're right to point towards memes as a possible schema for thinking about how cultures think. Mary Douglas, without using that specific term, wrote a brilliant book on How Institutions Think that I think serves as a good model, although I do have a weakness for Dawkins stuff :). On your last point, that taxonomies are inherent in language and form he basis of what people cab readily think, I agree. It is certainly possible to think outside of the available taxonomies, but the key seems to be not so much in the action of thinking as it is in the action of communicating those thoughts. I suspect that certain language characteristics either enhance or degrade the ability to change taxonomies or create new ones. For example, English is, in many ways, a nymphomaniac language. Its speakers will steal any word they like and propagate it fairy quickly. English is also a very easy language to create new words in or to attach new meanings to existing words. German, OTOH, tends to build new words via a process of agglutination (sp?) - lumping existing words together to form a "new" word. I suspect that they taxonomic structure inherent in German is stronger that that inherent in English. Marc Hi Jim,

There have been some moderately decent attempts at creating models of this stuff. They’re not easy, but they can be done :) .

You asked “is this a case of sloppy language, or do you mean to say that cultures themselves think?”

It’s an interesting question, and I could make an argument that cultures “think” – that’s partially what Durkheim was talking about with his concept of the conscience collectif. It’s also Anthro “shorthand” ;) .

You’re right to point towards memes as a possible schema for thinking about how cultures think. Mary Douglas, without using that specific term, wrote a brilliant book on How Institutions Think that I think serves as a good model, although I do have a weakness for Dawkins stuff :) .

On your last point, that taxonomies are inherent in language and form he basis of what people cab readily think, I agree. It is certainly possible to think outside of the available taxonomies, but the key seems to be not so much in the action of thinking as it is in the action of communicating those thoughts. I suspect that certain language characteristics either enhance or degrade the ability to change taxonomies or create new ones.

For example, English is, in many ways, a nymphomaniac language. Its speakers will steal any word they like and propagate it fairy quickly. English is also a very easy language to create new words in or to attach new meanings to existing words. German, OTOH, tends to build new words via a process of agglutination (sp?) – lumping existing words together to form a “new” word. I suspect that they taxonomic structure inherent in German is stronger that that inherent in English.

Marc

]]> By: Jim Cassidy http://marctyrrell.com/2008/06/29/structure-and-function-in-information-operations/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Jim Cassidy Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:14:11 +0000 http://marctyrrell.com/?p=35#comment-40 Interesting work, Marc, even to a lapsed academic like myself. How would you define, measure or describe an interpretive map. If such terms can be operationalized in a satisfactory way, some interesting models could be constructed to describe what you are talking about. But, let me pick at a bone. You write: Taxonomies are inherent in language (cf. Edward Sapir, Language, Race and Culture), and form the basis of how a culture thinks about things. Is this a case of sloppy language, or do you mean to say that cultures themselves think? This is an interesting idea. Just as we can say that human genes propagate themselves by means of people, can we say that ideas are reproducing themselves by the same means. We perceive ourselves to be autonomous, but genes and memes have a degree of automaton, too. Are we thinking our ideas, or are our ideas thinking us? I wouldn't argue one side or the other, or both, but I await your response. For what it is worth, it seems to me that taxonomies are inherent in language, and they form the basis of what individuals can readily think - other thoughts are possible, but not without resistance. Interesting work, Marc, even to a lapsed academic like myself. How would you define, measure or describe an interpretive map. If such terms can be operationalized in a satisfactory way, some interesting models could be constructed to describe what you are talking about.

But, let me pick at a bone. You write:

Taxonomies are inherent in language (cf. Edward Sapir, Language, Race and Culture), and form the basis of how a culture thinks about things.

Is this a case of sloppy language, or do you mean to say that cultures themselves think?

This is an interesting idea. Just as we can say that human genes propagate themselves by means of people, can we say that ideas are reproducing themselves by the same means. We perceive ourselves to be autonomous, but genes and memes have a degree of automaton, too. Are we thinking our ideas, or are our ideas thinking us?

I wouldn’t argue one side or the other, or both, but I await your response.

For what it is worth, it seems to me that taxonomies are inherent in language, and they form the basis of what individuals can readily think – other thoughts are possible, but not without resistance.

]]>