Notes on Requests and Freedom

One alleged point of difference between “Western” cultures and the cultures of indigenous hunter-gatherers (glossing over for the sake of simplicity the differences within both Western cultures and those we describe as hunter-gatherers) is this: When Westerners need something, they directly ask someone to get it for them; when hunter-gatherers need something, they state their own need, but they do not directly ask someone to provide for that need.

This difference is then glossed with an interpretation: Westerners don’t hesitate to tell others what to do, to give orders, to take charge, to assume that their needs are the ones that need to be met; hunter-gatherers leave their companions free to respond or to not respond to the stated need because nothing is directly asked of them. Westerners treat other people like domesticated animals; hunter-gathers treat the environment and other animals as persons deserving of respect. (See V.R. Cordova, How it Is: The Native American Philosophy of V.F. Cordova, p. 25-6., and Tim Ingold, The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill, p. 69-70.)

Put in the terminology of speech act theory, requesting is an illocutionary act; in hunter-gatherer societies requesting is an indirect illocutionary act. The perlocutionary effects of requesting in these ways are exactly opposite: the effect of the one is to feel imposed upon, coerced, not trusted; the effect of the other is to operate in trust, freedom, and harmony.

The differences indicated and the meaning of those differences rely on associating direct requests with manipulation and indirect requests with autonomy and freedom.

In my experience these terms are correlated in the exact opposite way. That is, a direct request makes it clear what exactly is needed. It leaves the one asked free to respond with a “Yes, I can do that” or “No, I’m sorry I can’t.” It sets a parameter so that everyone can know whether the request has been filled or not. Conversely, an indirect request remains vague as to the nature of the need and so requires considerable powers of divination even among married couples, it does not call for a response as to whether meeting the need is within the power of the one within earshot, and finally it remains indeterminate as to whether the need has been met, for nothing has been directly requested and no interpretation has been confirmed. That is, direct requests seem more aligned with granting freedom to the respondee and indirect communication is more likely to feel manipulative.

Augustinian Phenomenology

Yet, though they [trees] and all corporeal things have causes which lie hidden in their nature, they do display their forms ... for perception by our senses; and so it seems that, even though they themselves cannot know, they nonetheless wish to be known. City of God, xi.27.

Programing

Why is "program" such a powerful metaphor when speaking of mental phenomena? I've never truly programed anything. Neither have most people. I'm reading a book published in 1974, and already it is talking about "programing the mind." 1974!

From Luther Standing Bear

"For it is the mothers, not the warriors, who create a people and guide their destiny."

One could write an alternative to Hegel's philosophy of history on the basis of this statement.

“The experience of freedom has not been valued equally throughout history and across cultures. Even today freedom is out of sync with other highly desirable states of being, such as happiness, belonging, glory, or intimacy. While those states suggest unity and fusion, freedom has an element of estrangement that does not by definition exclude engagement with others in the public world but makes it more unpredictable.” Svetlana Boym, Another Freedom: The Alternative History of an Idea. University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 2.

Plagiarism, flattery, and the internet

Earlier this month (August 2010), Stanley Fish addressed the question of what it is to plagiarize & what’s wrong with plagiarizing in his Opinionator blog. Fish understands plagiarism to be using “words that were first uttered or written by another without due attribution”; and he understands that act to offend against the code of behavior that belongs to a particular guild. The guild in question is the academic one, where attribution is expected. There’s no moral question about the offense, any more than there is about breaking the rules of golf while you’re playing. Neither the rules of golf nor those of the academic guild have moral weight; they simply describe what you need to do if you want to perform that activity.

This is all abundantly & elegantly correct, in the usual Fishian deflationary mode. It should be borne in mind by Catholic thinkers, who have a tendency to get morally over-excited about this topic. It should also encourage us (we Catholics, that is) to ask whether the nature of the intellectual work we are called to do, in the methods & goals of which we should train our students, requires us to forbid & penalize plagiarism, defined as Fish does, with the same degree of enthuiasm as does the academic guild. It seems to me that we should not: a properly nuanced understanding of tradition, & of our capacities for thought, speech, & writing as gift, leaves little room for the categorization of plagiarism as an offense. It should & could be one of the distinctives of the Catholic intellectual life that we are altogether less exercised about plagiarism than our pagan counterparts.

There is a nice & deeply Catholic point here. Fish is not a Christian, even though he knows more theology than most Catholics, and understands it better. His clarity about what plagiarism is & what’s wrong with it (& especially about what’s not wrong with it) helps us Catholics to see with greater clarity than we likely otherwise would the lineaments of our own intellectual practice. As always, the Church needs the intellectual work & witness of those outside herself as stimulus to provoke and lead her to a fuller understanding of what she is and does.

(this post was plagiarized from paul j. griffiths) (I just couldn't do it straight, so I created a logical conundrum instead!)

The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/articles/deranged-gunman-opens-fire-on-shooting-range,17468/