the roughest draft possible. very disorganised. didn't paragraph
properly. though i seem to have organised via person, society, global.
too much explanation of concepts/terms. not enough explanation of
examples. the list goes on.
here it is though. put up here for the world to see.
i'm writing another more casual thing as well.
Reality
is one individual’s perspective and experiences of what the concrete
truths are that found the basis of the world we live in today. Every
individual will perceive reality in a different way, and form a unique
discourse as a result. However this discourse is formed via a
relationship with surrounding influences, and is essentially shaped by
changing levels of different types of capital. Different definitions of
communications are to be introduced, as well as the concepts of field,
capital, misrecognition, illusion, hexis, and habitus. How each field,
habitus, and discourse shapes and guides every individual’s perception,
and thus impacts on other fields and habitus’ is the question to focus
on. The amount of cultural capital within each habitus or field
ultimately defines every time and place, and these amounts are governed
by technology.
The specific ethical, political, and social
limitations and regulations within one’s present dynamic social arena or
space are known as a ‘field’, a phrase brought about by Bourdieu.
Patricia Thompson writes about Bourdieu’s research ‘the social field
consisted of positions occupied by social agents (people or
institutions) and what happens on/in the field is consequently
boundaried’ [p197 Thompson, P]. The social sphere one progressively
experiences throughout a lifetime, which guides our perception of
reality and our nature is known as a ‘habitus’. The habitus is a ‘partly
unconscious [adoption] of rules, values and dispositions’ [p212
Schirato, T et. al]. ‘Bourdieu nominated four forms of capital: economic
. . . cultural . . . social . . . and symbolic’ [p197 Thompson, P]. An
example of each could be a Lamborghini, knowledge of how to use
chopsticks, popularity within the music industry and the ownership of a
Nobel Prize. Communication can be a simple transmission of information,
such as an emergency radio broadcast, or it can be a ritual affirmation
of social and societal bonds, such as attending a Sunday family dinner,
or a dinner party with work colleagues. A hexis and illusio are made up
of the observable traits of a habitus, such as saying please or thank
you [p213, Schirato, T et. al].When people partake in illusio, they
assume a certain view according to their habitus and exclude those who
don’t fit their ‘correct’ view, e.g. if a child neglects to say please
they are seen as impolite and are thus excluded from a positive social
interaction, when in some cultures ‘please’ is not an imperative amongst
friends, the nature is more important than the word. The signs which
symbolize specific meanings in each situation are known as a discourse.
The meanings change relative to the situation.
Geoff
Danaher et al, write about Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus explaining
that it is a ‘partly unconscious [adoption] of rules, values and
dispositions . . . [which] are gained from our cultural history [and
are] durable and transposable’ [p.213, Schirato, T et. al]. The habitus
is influenced by similar factors as those shaping the field however the
field is one isolated place and time whereas the habitus is an ongoing
sphere of influence, and because it is ongoing, the influences on the
habitus have an enormous variety in comparison to those on the field.
This unique filtering of perception is moulded by previous habitus’ and
fields that individuals have experienced. Its creation depends equally
upon levels of economic, cultural, symbolic and social capital, upon
discourses, and the dynamic relationship between influences upon
discourses, fields and habitus’ experienced, and the nature or reality
we create from these influences [p141, Carey, J]. The differing levels
of every type of capital create contending forces within and between
differing fields and habitus’, so between class distinctions and social
group identities, or cultures. These competing influences can be
political, religious and philosophical influences; one’s position or
role in society including as a specific gender, one’s
relationship/family status, occupation, and socio-economic status.
Patricia Thompson writes about Bourdieu’s research, ‘the social field
consist(s) of positions occupied by social agents (people or
institutions)’ and that within this field each individuals actions are
‘shaped by the conditions of the field’ [p197, Thompson, P]. Different
political dynamics and designations, social rituals and conventions, and
ethical/practical social norms and regulations affect every field. This
concept is not limited to small spaces such as an office; it also
includes large spaces such as Australia, or a football arena. This
concept refers to the complex dynamics of each social ‘field’ and how
each and every limitation and social influence guides, shapes and causes
events within a social field. This idea maintains that each unique
individual carries a mental map shaping their life via previous fields
experienced [pp 138, 139, Carey, J, 213, Schirato, T et. al.]. Each
concept overlaps the other.
James Carey continues Dewey’s
research, focussing on the creative tension between definitions of
communication [p135, Carey, J]. Carey explains that communication can
either be ‘a process whereby messages are transmitted and distributed in
space for the control of distance and people’ [p133, Carey, J], or it
can be ‘the extension of messages in space [creating] the maintenance of
society in time, [and] represent(ing) shared beliefs’ [p134, Carey, J].
These two models of communication differ because one aims to extend
power and control through exclusion from knowledge, where the other aims
to create intrinsic bonds between people via shared traditions, values,
and experiences. Bourdieu discusses societal exclusions; similarly
historically the western cultured world excluded the lower classes from
direct access and interpretation of religious knowledge via the Latin
language. The cultural literacy was out of reach because it existed in a
different discourse [p188, Bourdieu, P]. Bourdieu also discusses the
shared experiences communication can create [p183, Bourdieu, P], similar
to Carey’s idea about how ritual communication ’is a symbolic process,
whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed’
[p137, Carey, J]. The relationship between differing models of
communication and societies, institutions and people is a cycle which
represents a type of communication that can then unconsciously be put
into practise, making the model into a guide for behaviour [p141, Carey,
J]. This relates to Bourdieu’s concept of illusio, cultural capital and
field. Using Sweden as an example, the education system is designed so
that it is available to a larger component of society, which creates a
standard level of knowledge and understanding, and thus a somewhat less
aggressive hexis within society. ‘We first produce the world by symbolic
work and then take up residence in the world we have produced’ [p140,
Carey, J]. The media creates and amplifies common traditions, and
experiences, spreading a societal habitus. However although the
communication models followed by the educational, and journalistic
institutions basically fall under the ritual label, the society created
is still problematic because standards inescapably exclude those who
aren’t ‘up to standard’, or who have not shared the traditional
experiences, spreading a degree of illusio. However the greater equality
of symbolic, economic, cultural, and social capital creates a generally
more stable society. Research is published in public newspapers in an
accessible way and good values are shared through classroom subjects
dedicated to positive citizenship. The habitus which the Swedish society
aims to create via institutions, accessible discourses and fields, is
an intrinsically positive one.
Every influence in a society,
whether it is political, religious, philosophical, or traditional, has
infinite variety, because of the enormous variation in symbols used to
represent or create similar ideals or meanings [James Carey p139]. This
consequently means that infinite possibilities exist for the habitus;
however variety is limited by available symbols, ‘reality is both
produced and delimited by whatever sign systems we have at our disposal’
[p212, Shirato, T, et. al]. Looking at Asian languages, there are a
wider variety of language symbols present, enabling a deeper and more
complex filtration of the habitus compared to the English language.
Carey focussed on a concept similar to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus,
exploring the perception of reality. ‘Space can then be mapped, then, in
different modes—utilizing lines on a page, sounds in air, movements in
dance’ [p139, Carey, J]. If Bourdieu’s concepts of the habitus, field,
capital, illusio and hexis, are combined with Carey’s focus on the
creative tension between different modes of communication creating
different ‘realities’; an example of what the abstract idea of reality
is can be produced via these specific limitations. Take a horoscope; it
aims to advise individuals on ethical behaviour via generalized
statements according to common possible situations one may experience.
Some cultures have ingrained traditional beliefs in the categorical
organisation of people via the horoscope, so some individuals from these
cultures would have a more open-minded filtration of the horoscope.
However if the same individuals are introduced to scientific, or
political fields and discourses which traditionally impart their
knowledge via transmission [p135, Carey, J], the opposing knowledge and
cultural based filtrations will contend for a final perception of the
horoscope. The older individuals within such cultures have higher levels
of cultural and social capital, where the younger individuals have more
symbolic and economic capital. The younger individuals can get sucked
into the dominating illusio of the transmittance view, abandoning their
original traditional ritual values. The younger individuals view
horoscopes with disdain, imitating much of the western society hexis. If
we then extend the example to visiting a psychic, shifting the mode of
communication from visual, to both aural, kinaesthetic, and visual, the
relationship between opposing communication models and competing
concepts changes. Depending on an individual’s unique level of exposure
to each of these influences, or habitus, the added aural and
kinaesthetic experience will affirm an individual’s perception of
reality. This change in reception of communication is similar to how
primary or secondary education is received. The transmittance approach
and reception matches exclusion and disdain, whereas the ritual approach
and reception tends to match greater understanding and thus
appreciation. The map that filters an individual’s perception of place
and time dictates the relationship between symbolising and creating ways
of living in reality [p138, Carey, J].
The arrival of
communication technology further extended the modes of communication and
thus changed the types of habitus, field, illusio, capital, discourse,
hexis, and thus reality. Globalisation spreads political, social,
economic, and technological ideals however the link between all of these
is communication, and communication has been intrinsically changed by
technology. Those with technological cultural literacy, i.e. symbolic
capital, participate in the technological field of the World Wide Web,
and an illusio is developed between the literate and illiterate. A
general hexis of individualism and privacy develops where less time is
spent participating in traditional ritual communication, and more time
is spent on individual activities which can breed suspicion. Any
activity done individually without a witness is potentially suspicious,
even walking down the street, or sitting at a computer, if it is at
night. ‘The capacity of private thought . . . appears biographically
later in the person and historically later in the species’ [p139,
Thompson, P]. However an illusio doesn’t only exclude social categorical
identities, it also combines people into a confusing complexity of
variety of standards, social norms, and traditions. The multiple
components of the determinist relationship between cultural, political,
economical and social society and technology, like any other
relationship, become more complex as they become more intertwined [p157,
Williams, R, p136, Carey, J]. If the departure from grounded ritual
physical communication towards a combination of transmittance and partly
undefined, para-social ritual communication via technology is added to
the complexity of the global field, the potential for communication
problems increases [pp 60, Williams, R, 150, Caronia, L, 202, Thompson,
P]. A departure from the limits of a specific field guiding the
understanding of symbols allows for misrepresentation and
misunderstanding, such as pornography compared to art. At the same time
it carries the potential for positive intensification of common ethics
and knowledge. Carey maintains that the ritual view of communication
‘gives us a way in which to rebuild a model ‘of’ and ‘for’ communication
of some restorative value in reshaping our common culture’ [p143,
Carey, J]. However the present mass existence of problems seems
impossible to change because participants caught up in ‘the game’
[p197.Thompson, P] are unconsciously working within an historically
grounded transmission view of communication [p135, Carey, J]. Similar
to Marshall McLuhan’s example used by Carey, like a raindrop joins the
ocean, people join a seemingly unlimited, flowing relationship between
multiple influences relative to cultural capital [p137, Carey, J].
Because of the lack of limiting aspects via technology, once the
raindrop joins the ocean, how the raindrop can then be distinguished and
extracted, or reversed seems very difficult to the rain drop, or
person. An ocean can change shape because of its qualities, and
similarly the social, political, economic and cultural ocean that makes
up the present global reality can change shape.
Reality therefore
is an infinitely complex abstract idea, because it is limited and
regulated by a finite amount of multiple influences. The shift in the
shape of communication, being the common universal influence, has
further extended, intensified, and combined the complexity of reality.
The complexity itself lies in the simplicity of less limitation and
regulation, ‘the purpose of representation is to express not the
possible complexity of things but their simplicity’ [p139, Carey, J].
No comments:
Post a Comment