Alternative Anthropology | home
Symbolic Framing | Symbolic Engineering | Human Systems | Anthropology of Knowledge | The Anthropological Synthesis | Anthropological Relativity | Symbolization | Symbolic Construction | Symbolic Design
Symbolic Construction
The Symbolic Construction of Human Reality
I have undertaken this work in symbolic systems as an extension of fieldwork conducted eight years ago on Penang, Island, Malaysia, in regard to symbolic framing research, and then carried on afterward to a limited extent in Henan Province, in the People's Republic of China. Subsequent theoretical work in systems science and natural systems theory extended the framework within which to define these methods in both a scientific and humanistic manner. Subsequent development has led to the extension and application therefore of this general approach to a wide variety of areas, and it has engendered new schools of thought. I have elaborated areas that I refer to as symbolic linguistics, symbolic psychology, symbolic culture, symbolic social organization, symbolic behavioral studies, symbolic development and symbolic acquisition. The use of the term "symbolic" in this frame of reference refers not to the usual and conventional notion of symbolism, though it embraces most of this. Rather, it refers to a rather specific theory about central mechanisms of the organization of human consciousness, perception, cognition, memory functions and also of human patterns of behavioral response and adaptation, and how these mechanisms operate in relation to a wide variety of human systems. The argument, simply put, is that human cognition is unique to the extent that it can be said to be symbolic in function and mode of operation, and this can account both for its strengths and capacities of intellect, for its differentials of cultural and personality patterning, as well as for its shortcomings and limitations.
Symbolic framing methods that have been developed around this theory have borrowed from a wide plethora of previous research and represents an empirical and experimental demonstration of the symbolic functioning of human mental and brain processes in the organization of belief and behavior. While it has been long acknowledged in a general sense that this relationship is valid and universal for all of humanity, it was never clearly defined in any specific, much less in a scientifically operational, manner. Symbolic framing methods thus can be said to be a broad set of different tasks and techniques, collected within a single theoretical-interpretative framework, and forming the template to the revision and development of new methods and approaches in a fairly wide range of areas of application in human systems research and development. The productivity of these methods and the insight they have revealed into human nature and behavior and social organization, have well warranted investment in their extension and further experimentation.
At the same time, the larger framing theory itself is entirely consistent and consonant within an even more general and inclusive framework of human knowledge about natural systems. From this standpoint, human behavior on a basic level remains a complex product of a concatenation of a number of quite natural and normal kinds of factors. I have sought therefore to construct this larger framework of understanding within which to properly configure our approaches to the problem of human symbolic behavior.
*****
Cultural symbol systems occur as mostly coherent and integrated constructions that include linguistic, behavioral, cognitive and social forms that are consistent and interconnected. Disruption of cultures due to forced or inordinate acculturation results in displacement, dislocation or disintegration of elements and components of these systems, resulting in the break down of the capacity for the cultural system to mediate reality in a consistent and adaptive manner. This is entirely parallel and related to the psychological equilibrium of coherent symbolic functioning of ego in the mediation and adapation to real experiences. The two sets of processes are essentially interconnected and interdependent, and thus can be seen to reinforce one another.
Symbol systems, whether cultural or psychological, are never static or unchanging processes, but are continuously being modified in adaptation to new circumstances that are presented. Elements of such systems are elaborated, new elements replace old elements, and the systems as coherent entities continue to function normally. Addition of new elements may result in reverberations that result in subsequent modification of other elements or components of such systems to accommodate for the inclusion and action of the new elements.
The basic model of the anthropological construction of reality stems from a gemeinschaft understanding of human dynamics in small face-to-face community organizations. I make the claim that there is a common pattern of social interaction that replicates itself, with cultural variation, in all groupings that are formed in all societies. These patterns unfold in anthropology departments, in neighborhoods, in friendship networks, clubs, and in work places. They replicate basic institutional features that are enduring to human society. These patterns represent a basic primary orality of a conversational apparatus and common knowledge that serve to reinforce the mechanism in both direct and indirect ways. This model is manipulated and conditioned to fit a wide range of varying contexts and situational circumstances, and thus is proven for its extreme flexibility. It demonstrates a fundamental predilection of all people for status and symbolic reinforcement of their basic identity in small group contexts.
In a modern world, people frequently move readily between two or more such community contexts, and come to define their identity in such a multi-modal way that can serve both to exacerbate the common stresses that people are prone to, and at the same time, to protect individuals from the totalizing influences that having a single role or set of roles within a single community framework might otherwise necessitate. And yet there is a trade-off in such an escape from the small-world constraints of such a totalizing world of the small community, and this is in terms of the loss of personal identity and inter-personal reinforcement in the work and market place that is prestructured by larger structural considerations.
The fundamental rural-urban transition that is characteristic of modernization suggests that the basic familial and small community network pattern that exists in the rural setting becomes fundamentally displaced. The alienation, anomie and sense of rootlessness of the modern industrial worker in a larger context can be understood as the essential loss and displacement of this primary anthropological context by relations structured in work and labor, which tend on average to be relatively impersonal and partial at best.
Furthermore, these dynamics remain basically the same regardless of the exact structure or context in which they are being articulated. As such they share certain affinities that I hold to be universal to humankind, and constitute therefore a basic model of human interaction and sociability at the level of the gemeinschaft community.
The model of the anthropological construction of reality stems theoretically from the Anthropology of Knowledge and empirically from repeated observations carried across a wide variety of plethora of cross-cultural contexts.
Ruth Benedict in her work Patterns of Culture describes four culture patterns that she holds to be very differently structured on a very basic level, such that human relationships in each of these cultural orientations articulated differently and had fundamentally different ramifications for the psycho-social status identity of the individuals involved. This culture pattern approach became the basis for the controversial theory of cultural relativism, particularly as this was more explicitly expounded and developed in her paper Anthropology and the Abnormal. At the same time, this approach came to influence a whole generation of anthropologist in the field and came to foster the approach known as the culture and personality school of psychological anthropology.
This model remains relatively true to form regardless of other cultural or larger socio-structural frameworks within which it may be situated, and it thus represents a point of convergence for understanding various facets of humanity simultaneously. Within this framework we can find expression for many of the humanistic motivations and subjective force of character than can be seen in Shakespeare or in any other great writer. At the same time, we can find the grinding wheel of history in its daily revolutions and how this unfolds into a larger drama in the making. Also we can see the play of psychology, and especially social psychology, in the articulation of small group relations and enduring roles of members of such communities.
While her ethnographic work was criticized for its empirical inaccuracy and overgeneralizations to fit preconceived models, and while her theory of cultural relativity has been, to say the least quite controversial in the subsequent unfolding of anthropological thinking, it remains nevertheless over looked that her central contribution was that of showing the relationship of individual personality to that of the predominant cultural patterning, regardless of the variations involved, on a very basic level.
Describe the basic mechanism
Role of hearsay and gossip as a status control mechanism
Boundary-maintainence
Hierarchy and status stratification
Explain the mechanism in theoretical terms
Explain the multi-faceted implications of such a mechanism.
World-openness and the human condition. Symbolization and language.
Anthropogenesis and human culture
An evolutionary model of human development
The links to the primary portals of this framework are found below:
