Let me offer another aspect of talk about symbols; we sometimes define
humans as creatures capable of manipulating symbols, and, of course, this is
tied to the human characteristic of talking, and when we talk about
manipulating symbols, we are not talking about what symbols are, or what
they do, but what and how we as humans do with them. If we look at the
research of the twentieth century from our perspective of the fin de siecle
of this 20th century, I believe that it is safe to say that language is the
constant theme. From Ogden and Richards' Meaning of Meaning, the work of De
Saussure, Alfred Korzybski, Edward Sapir, Charles Morris, Wittgenstein,
until today with Jacques Derrida and the Deconstructionists and
Post-Structuralists, the fascination with language has been constant,
because as much as it empowers us as humans, it is also limits us to the
limits of its grammar. Ah, grammar, I say, and indeed, that is how humans
manipulate symbols.
Generally when we think of symbols, we are grammatically referring to nouns,
but we need and use all those words in between the nouns that are also
symbols that, as we say as grammarians, modify, these nouns. So when we
talk of symbols, it goes beyond being able to talk about a rock instead of
pointing or gesturing at it, for if I say I will throw a rock at someone the
symbol is very different than if I say, I will polish the rock and make it
into jewelry. In one case it signifies aggressive intent and in the other
it implies aesthetic values.
As symbolic interactionists, the inference is that we act socially through
our ability to manipulate symbols, and as classic SI points out, we project
symbolically our perceptions of personna in complex ways so that the "I"
gets perceived differently than the "me" of the same personna. Then there
is the role and the self, and we are still considering the same individual
personna with different symbols, each parsing out an analytic aspect of the
human being, but it gets more complicated than that. With the
conceptualizing of "me," there is the acknowledgement that an other's
perception of the same me is different than the self's perception of the
same me, just as the "I" perceives the other's "me" differently than the
other's self perceives its own "me." As we parse this out, as we manipulate
our symbols in ever greater social circles, the more complex this
manipulation becomes.
The question that must be raised is if this particular system of symbol
manipulation achieves what it sets out to do? Can it be improved? How? To
assume that SI will be unchanging is to assume that one day it will have the
status that the study of the humours have today. So my questions are in
order. I do not know if I have given a complete answer to Betsy; I doubt
that I have. I hope I have sparked some thought among the listmembers that
they can complete, or at least add to what I hope is the beginning of an answer.
Jerry Blaz
At 08:39 PM 2/1/96 -0600, you wrote:
>We spent the entire first class today talking about symbols, but no body
>brought up a fundamental question.....
>WHAT IS A SYMBOL???
>Charon never defines what a symbol is. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
>
>good luck-betsy simmons
>
>
Jerry Blaz/The BOOKie Joint
7246 Reseda Blvd.
Reseda, CA 91335
(818)345-2983/(818)343-1055
ffdog@earthlink.net
Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a good book.
Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.
G. Marx