Trading in abstractions
I doubt I will have time to explore this idea fully at present. This idea started when a friend commented how she was scared of everything after finding out what went into it, and another friend wrote about abstractions and other things.
I begin by noting that much of teaching practice, and indeed everyday life, actually involves a trade of concepts and theoretical abstractions about the wor(l)d. Sometimes these concepts and abstractions may actually demystify the wor(l)d, other times they may serve to prevent us seeing the relationships embedded in a thing or concept. I start with a simple example of the word concept of 'beef' and the abstraction of 'meat'. The word concept of 'beef' signifies 'food' which is 'meat', which are all abstractions within language. We take for granted that this thing called 'beef' might exist. But the word concept 'beef' is not stable, as the picture that is summons forth could range from a stab of steak, ground red mince meat or brown spaghetti bolognaise or a Hereford cow or 'beefie' depending on the individual imagining the concept of 'beef'. The word concept of 'cow' is far more stable than the word 'beef'. We imagine a word picture of a four legged, hairy, hoofed animal, perhaps with horns, and perhaps with an udder, and usually with a tail, nevertheless it is far more stable an idea than the concept of 'beef'. That is because the word concept of 'cow' signifies an actual word picture in our minds. Unlike word concepts that are usually purely abstractions like 'justice' or 'law' or 'beef'. In this way 'beef' is an abstraction that mystifies the relationship between 'meat that is beef' and this hairy, living, breathing thing called 'a cow'. In this way 'beef' as a abstract concept actually mystifies the relations between killing a cow and eating 'beef'. 'Beef' as an abstract concept allows people not to think about a bolt gun being used to splatter a cows brains all over the ground and an animal being killed so we may eat 'meat'.
In this way an abstraction has the capacity to protect the psyche from everyday violence built into the system of material relations in which we live. But once we are able to see a different set of relations embedded in a word/object/concept the abstraction is either removed or changed. It is far more difficult to eat a cow that you have met and know. Or perhaps kill that animal. Most meat eaters would balk at the suggestion that if the only way for them to eat 'beef' was to personally kill 'a cow'. Now that I have provided another way of viewing 'beef' it is difficult, at least for the time being, to avoid thinking about how the cow that must be killed for a person to eat 'beef'. In this way the abstraction has been put under scrutiny and has collapsed revealing a process in which 'meat' is created, by slaughtering an animal called 'a cow'.
So, we also do not see, or are able to see, the labour value embedded within the commodity of 'beef'. After all when we refer to the word concept of 'beef' we not describe the relations embedded in the object as:
'A piece of dead cow killed and cut up by a man in an abittoir, packed into boxes by another man and put on a refrigerated truck, transported for a 100 kilometres, unloaded by another man, cut up into smaller pieces in a place called a supermarket by a man called a butcher, packed by his assistant into polystrene tray and bought by X person and taken home.'
It is begining to get a bit of a mouthful! And if we were to do so, this removes a convienent abstraction. In a sense I am also being lazy in my description here, as I have removed the labour that created the machines to kill and cut up the cow in the first place and the vehicles that transported the workers to their places of work, etc., before a person bought the commodity called 'beef'. Now I suppose I have been a little mischevious in that I have introduced the word concept of 'commodity', which I have implicitly taken to mean an object-concept with a labour value embedded into it that has an exchange value.
Now we begin to reach the nub, or the guts or the erogenous zone of the problem with the trade in abstractions. At what point do we stop tracing backwards the layers of abstractions and processes which are attached to a concept or, in the case of 'beef', a commodity? And in a sense are we ever conciously aware of the processes that make a commodity or constitute an abstract concept? Lastly if it were possible to be aware of the processes, should we want to be aware of what consitutes either a word concept with a object commodity attached, like 'beef', or how other abstractions with no ready object picture attached, like 'justice', are constituted through language? I return to the question of the possibility of protecting the psyche. And, is ignorance actually bliss?
I begin by noting that much of teaching practice, and indeed everyday life, actually involves a trade of concepts and theoretical abstractions about the wor(l)d. Sometimes these concepts and abstractions may actually demystify the wor(l)d, other times they may serve to prevent us seeing the relationships embedded in a thing or concept. I start with a simple example of the word concept of 'beef' and the abstraction of 'meat'. The word concept of 'beef' signifies 'food' which is 'meat', which are all abstractions within language. We take for granted that this thing called 'beef' might exist. But the word concept 'beef' is not stable, as the picture that is summons forth could range from a stab of steak, ground red mince meat or brown spaghetti bolognaise or a Hereford cow or 'beefie' depending on the individual imagining the concept of 'beef'. The word concept of 'cow' is far more stable than the word 'beef'. We imagine a word picture of a four legged, hairy, hoofed animal, perhaps with horns, and perhaps with an udder, and usually with a tail, nevertheless it is far more stable an idea than the concept of 'beef'. That is because the word concept of 'cow' signifies an actual word picture in our minds. Unlike word concepts that are usually purely abstractions like 'justice' or 'law' or 'beef'. In this way 'beef' is an abstraction that mystifies the relationship between 'meat that is beef' and this hairy, living, breathing thing called 'a cow'. In this way 'beef' as a abstract concept actually mystifies the relations between killing a cow and eating 'beef'. 'Beef' as an abstract concept allows people not to think about a bolt gun being used to splatter a cows brains all over the ground and an animal being killed so we may eat 'meat'.
In this way an abstraction has the capacity to protect the psyche from everyday violence built into the system of material relations in which we live. But once we are able to see a different set of relations embedded in a word/object/concept the abstraction is either removed or changed. It is far more difficult to eat a cow that you have met and know. Or perhaps kill that animal. Most meat eaters would balk at the suggestion that if the only way for them to eat 'beef' was to personally kill 'a cow'. Now that I have provided another way of viewing 'beef' it is difficult, at least for the time being, to avoid thinking about how the cow that must be killed for a person to eat 'beef'. In this way the abstraction has been put under scrutiny and has collapsed revealing a process in which 'meat' is created, by slaughtering an animal called 'a cow'.
So, we also do not see, or are able to see, the labour value embedded within the commodity of 'beef'. After all when we refer to the word concept of 'beef' we not describe the relations embedded in the object as:
'A piece of dead cow killed and cut up by a man in an abittoir, packed into boxes by another man and put on a refrigerated truck, transported for a 100 kilometres, unloaded by another man, cut up into smaller pieces in a place called a supermarket by a man called a butcher, packed by his assistant into polystrene tray and bought by X person and taken home.'
It is begining to get a bit of a mouthful! And if we were to do so, this removes a convienent abstraction. In a sense I am also being lazy in my description here, as I have removed the labour that created the machines to kill and cut up the cow in the first place and the vehicles that transported the workers to their places of work, etc., before a person bought the commodity called 'beef'. Now I suppose I have been a little mischevious in that I have introduced the word concept of 'commodity', which I have implicitly taken to mean an object-concept with a labour value embedded into it that has an exchange value.
Now we begin to reach the nub, or the guts or the erogenous zone of the problem with the trade in abstractions. At what point do we stop tracing backwards the layers of abstractions and processes which are attached to a concept or, in the case of 'beef', a commodity? And in a sense are we ever conciously aware of the processes that make a commodity or constitute an abstract concept? Lastly if it were possible to be aware of the processes, should we want to be aware of what consitutes either a word concept with a object commodity attached, like 'beef', or how other abstractions with no ready object picture attached, like 'justice', are constituted through language? I return to the question of the possibility of protecting the psyche. And, is ignorance actually bliss?
0 comments:
Post a Comment