CHAPTER TWELVE

SYMBOLIC DIFFERENTIALS OF PSYCHO-CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

by Hugh M. Lewis

The symbol as it occur in the cultural context cannot be understood outside of reference to this context. A symbol is actually a symbolic process, a process of symbolization, that involves the integration of diverse elements of experience--perceptive, imaginary, cognitive, affective, linguistic and behavioral--into a coherent mental representation of some specific external stimuli or related set of such objective stimuli. Symbolisms are tied to other symbolisms, and share many elements of experience. Symbolic stimuli are also evocative of a relatively wide range of ordered responses at several levels.

It appears that in both human ontogenetic development--in primary cultural acquisition of the child, there is increasing symbolic differentiation of the phenomenal field of experience, as marked by transition of such experience from those symbolic qualities of "diffuseness, indefiniteness, lability, syncretism, rigidity" of the part which shares the "qualities-of-the-whole" toward greater articulation, discreteness, organicism, objectification, flexibility and stability, in which the part acquires a clear mental representation as an abstract thing in itself in clear, functionally organic relationship to other parts and to the whole (Werner, 1957; Mortensen, 1991).

There appears to be an analogical continuum of cultural development at the organic level of institutional organization, in which we can refer to a movement and basic differences of symbolic qualities from those cultures described as "oral" to those which are described as fully literate in noetic organization of consciousness (Havelock, Ong, McCluhan, Goody).

I am concerned here with the dilemma of the part/whole--that the whole is something more than the sum of its parts, or that the whole is nothing but the sum of its parts, especially as this becomes expressed in terms of social reality--that social groups and patterns constitute a superorganic whole that cannot be reduced to a mere analysis of the parts (elements, traits, aspects, individuals) that make up the whole. Is there a rational way out of this dilemma, beyond an appeal for a transcendent attitude which incorporates both the analytic and synthetic points of view simultaneously? An analytical, reductive approach seems to logically preclude the possibility (indeed demands the logical impossibility) of a holistic approach rooted in the synergism of the total pattern, and yet we inevitably run into a theoretical cul-de-sac when it comes to explaining cosmographical patterns of the whole in terms of the inter-functioning of the parts. At some point we must make a philosophical leap of faith about the a priori significance of the whole pattern which comes before, and dialectically transcends, the part.

I doubt there is any other logical way out of this dilemma, unless we adopt a systems approach which is based in information theory and which defines the duality of patterning of the whole as a cybernetic feedback relationship among the parts. Locked in a feedback system, the concerted inter-functioning of the parts become "connected" and amplified to achieve a duality of information patterning at two separate, yet interdependent, levels of process.

This perspective lends itself readily to a phenomenological perspective in which the many parts constituting the whole are but limited facets of the whole gestalt. What Heinz Werner refers (1957) to as an "organic" (holistic) perspective construes the necessity of formal relationships which predetermines the relationship and meaning of the parts to the whole. Organic ontogenetic development entails that the stages of progress of growth and maturation of the individual organism much be comprehended from such a holistic point of view, as a process leading from less to greater differentiation, stratification and integration of parts in relationship to the whole.

It is in reference to the organic psychological development of human cognition, especially as this is construed to occur in a graded, scheduled sequence of stages of acquisition of basic skills, that a general theory relating psychology and culture, and nature and nurture, and the role of evolution in human genetic development, is to be found.

From an organic, non-reductionist perspective, this process is seen to be one primarily of increasing differentiation of a previously undifferentiated phenomenal field--a process which is primarily symbolic in character. It is this basic symbolic character of human cognition and culture which accounts most for the many pieces of the human puzzle and which must be taken into account in a broader framework of understanding of this puzzle.

The neonatal human being is understood to live in a relatively undifferentiated phenomenal field in which basic motor-coordinative functions are the principle modalities of experience. Early human experience is characterized by synaethesia of sensory modalities, by physiognomic versus formal-factual (subjective versus objective) perception, by motor-object activity in association with acquisition, and by personification of object stimuli. With maturation there occurs systematic inauguration and elaborate differentiation of the phenomenal field at ever higher levels of symbolic abstraction and integration. It is a process that incorporates and eclipses previous earlier phases which depended upon more basic modalities of experience.

It is my hypothesis that this basic process of the symbolic differentiation of human experience occurs in a scheduled sequence of stages of acquisition and growth, each of which can be characterized by heightened activity and organization of particular sensory modalities. The effective ("vital") environment, which is culturally structured and organized socially, provides the principal feedback mechanism in the channeling and modifying the resulting pattern of development in distinct directions. What occurs as a possibility of the symbolic differentiation of the phenomenal field is the increasing diversification of psycho-cultural patterning along alternate directions of development. The basic, genetically defined stages of this growth and development are natural and pan-human. The socio-cultural context in which this development occurs is constructed and varies substantially--leading to different consequences of this development.

Language plays a key active role in this process of the symbolic differentiation of the phenomenal field, and language is held to influence this process, as well as being a medium of expression for this process. This leads to several important points about language: 1.Naming is an integral part of symbolization which connects the object-sign to the affective response and the cognized signification--at the same time the named word serves to precipitate, reify and embody this symbolic relationship between inner and outer worlds. 2. Language serves in symbolically embedding experience in a coherent, intelligible manner--names and symbolisms become associated and networked with other names and associations--such that the patterning of language production and structure is a naturalistic expression of the symbolic organization and differentiation of human experience. 3. Linguistic acquisition and ethnosemantic organization of knowledge mirror the patterning and organization of the symbolic differentiation of experience, and can be utilized as an effective means of analyzing and mapping this development.

The clearest empirical example of the patterning of which exists of such symbolic acquisition is the Berlin et. al. demonstration of the acquisition of basic color terms. There is no reason not to presume that similar predictably ordered patterns of acquisition exist for other modalities of experience and domains of knowledge.

Preliminary tasks with the Symbolic Framing Battery demonstrate that analogical chains of associations guided by principles of grouping and contrast form the early structure of symbolic experience. Within these chains, gaps of information are created which can be predictably completed by an understanding of the analogical context of the gap. The analogical extension of these association chains leads to the creation of gaps which are implicated in early development. These analogical chains of associations become increasingly constrained by a number of obligatory relations--principally, a stratification of more-to-less basic symbolisms reinforced by experience, by superimposition of exceptional rules of disconformity, and by the hyper-compartmentalization and subsequent stratification of such chains into specific to general domains, which themselves can be abstractly symbolized and represented. The result is a semi-determined network of associations, reflected in the ethno-semantic patterns of the language, that can be implicitly represented with rules which define the most likely or preferred pathways.

Culture appears to be determinative in this process of symbolic elaboration at a number of levels. Foremost, to the degree that a cultural orientation is focused and coherent, it serves to orient this schematic elaboration of associations with a wider world in a constrained manner, based upon certain primes that are cultural defined. The style of affective reinforcement of acquisition, and the social agencies of this reinforcement, are also culturally defined. From a behavioral point of view, oral gratification/restriction and physical or verbal reinforcement appear to operate as basic mechanisms of stimulus response which reinforce these patterns of symbolic acquisition. We may also look to behavioral patterns and implicit values of the socio-cultural context that serve to structure the child's symbolic relationship and expectations in relation to the environment--patterns which are principally expressed through children's patterning of play. Pre-adolescent patterns appear to involve primarily psycho-social and psycho-object relations with a social and material environment. Post-adolescent stages appear to involve the inauguration of psycho-sexual and psycho- status patterns of reinforcement related to patterns of sexual gratification/restriction and reinforcement.

Symbolic construction appears to involve several analytically discrete components--naming, an affective response, a percepto-cognitive association or set of associations, and an externally objective frame of reference. The symbol must be seen as the whole construct that emerges from the interrelation of these components--and in a sense is as much a process of symbolization as it can be seen to be a thing in itself. Basic to this process is one of symbolic identification, apparently in its early stages a form of primitive personification of objects, that later becomes a more polarized form of anthropomorphization. In the process of symbolic differentiation, acquisition appears to occur in an ordered manner in a discrete number of developmental stages. It leads to the development of a rationally ordered framework in which the affective aspects of the symbol become normally constrained and suppressed, often subconsciously projected, via systems of cognitive rationalization and symbolic abstraction.

We may speak of a broad genetic analogy which amounts to a developmental parallelism between ontogenetic, cultural and phylogenic levels of informational patterning. The relative levels of achieved symbolic differentiation of the phenomenal field will vary in similar ways at these different levels of analysis.