SCoR - Section I, Ch. 3 "Language and Knowledge in Everyday Life"
summary of "The Social Construction of Reality" by Berger and Luckmann, gotta repost because Tumblr fucked up the article slugs and I couldn't link to individual posts correctly
I. Human expressivity can be concretized/objectified ("objectivation") and therefore the subjective can be made part of a shared objective reality.
II. The reality of everyday life is filled with, and possible because of, these "objectivations."
III. A "sign" is a special case of objectivation, in that it is explicitly intended to serve as an index of subjective meaning.
IV. Signs are clustered in systems, and as objectivations have a property of "detachibility" from the here-and-now; "a dance is less a part of the dancer than a snarl is a part of the snarler."
V. Spoken language i.e. vocal signs is the most important sign system compared to eg. gesture, movement, artifact, etc; it is language because of detachibility
VI. The detachibility of language lies in its ability to communicate meaning beyond the subjective here-and-now.
VII. Languge also possesses a quality of rapid reciprocity in face-to-face interaction; subjectivity can be synchronized. I also hear myself; my subjectivity becomes more accessible to me in conversation. "Men must talk about themselves until they know themselves."
VIII. Language has its origins in, and mainly references, shared objective reality. It is external and coercive; it imposes patterns in order to be successful as communication; it anonymizes as it becomes more broadly applicable.
IX. Language also integrates different aspects of everyday life into a more meaningful whole - "here and now" can also be "this and that," "then and now", etc.
X. Language can integrate non-reality as well, eg describing a dream embeds a disjoint "reality" into everyday reality.
XI. A theme that spans realities in this way can b defined as a "symbol." The linguistic mode that manifests these symbols is "symbolic language," characterized by maximal detachment from everyday reality. Religion, philosophy, art, science are examples of such symbolic languages/symbol systems, and are essential constituents of everyday life.
XII. The structure and usage oflanguge defines (precisely or loosely) "zones of meaning" or "semantic fields" eg the tu/vous dichotomy in French defines zones of social intimacy, or occupational languages (medicine, engineering, etc) define their own zones, etc. Semantic fields represent stocks of social knowledge.
XIII. Semantic fields representing social relational knowledge allow "placement" i.e. social role definition
XIV. Since much of everyday life is dominated by the "pragmatic motive", much of social knowledge consists of "recipes" (procedures, heuristics, algorithms) for resolving or addressing social problems/situations.
XV. Social knowledge is differentiated by degree of familiarity: that which I do more, I understand more fully/embody the semantic field more fully.
XVI. These semantic fields are taken as "valid until further notice" i.e. until they cannot provide a routine to handle a given situation.
XVII. The semantic fields I embody - the fraction of the social stock of knowledge that I possess - is a lucid zone behind which there is a background of darkness, that which I do not and in many cases cannot know.
XVIII. Semantic fields are also structured by relevance; what is and is not relevant for me overlaps, or doesn't, with other folks relevant semantic fields; relevance is also contextual.
XIX. Semantic fields are also unevenly distributed: that which I know, others may not, and vice-versa - thus knowledge of the distribution of knowledge is an important part of social knowledge.
re: III and XI - discussion of signs/symbols may be borrowing from semiotic theory here, but usage seems different from what I recall of my (limited) reading
re: VII - echoes of Paul Graham on essay-writing - expression is creation/crystallization/objectification
re: IX - language flattens the past and brings it into the present - the "depth" of social reality/semantic fields is always apprehended in the present - holograms on the surface of a black hole, an infinitely small layer of present knowledge that is refreshed by objective artifacts - including people - but has no existence outside of now
re: XII - semantic field has analogy to electrical/magnetic/gravitational fields of physics? it stores… something, it grows and shrinks, it can dissipate, it is carried in a medium, etc…
re: XIV, XV - Herbert Simon - interfaces - abstraction of knowledge: i make a phone call but do not need to know how phone system works - Sherlock Holmes brain-attic analogy
Also re: XV - increasing density of knowledge means more need for abstraction/interfaces that "hide" that complexity - there is only so much a person can know, the more complex the whole the less each person can embody ("the machine stops" as a limiting case)
re: XVI - semantic fields can fail OR be contradictory - cognitive dissonance - pernicious social issues as cultural cognitive dissonance eg abortion, gun control - ripe fields of exploitation for political extremists BECAUSE they are complexities that have not been reduced - energy minimization preferred, "answers" needed - the dialectic, thesis and antithesis without (yet) synthesis
