LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  March 2008

CELTIC-L March 2008

Subject:

Re: More on Celtic A & B

From:

Gil Das <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:27:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (222 lines)

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:15:19 -0700, John Hooker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>So a purely perceived identity is both constructed and then socially
expressed by
>the society that perceives it. It thus becomes a construct of a different
set of
>people who have their own identity and a tendancy to see everything through the
>filter of that identity. 

So if we say that the Romans never identified the British
>as Celts then it was the expression of the Roman identity that brought
about this
>situation and they were seeing that through the filter of their own
identity. Even
>then, we cannot be sure whether all Romans at all times differentiated
Britons and
>Celts -- which is a problem because they sometimes referred to Gauls as
Celts and

>other times just to Gauls. They referred to Gauls far more often than to
Britons, so
>I suppose that one could count the number of Roman references to Gauls as
Gauls and
>Gauls as Celts to come up with a ratio between the two references. Then we
count the
>times when the Romans referred to Britons and see if the lack of references to
>Britons as Celts was statistically vaild. Unfortunately, the absence of
evidence
>problem would still remain if we did that and we could not really determine
if the
>Romans had some criterion, unknown to us, that led them to not call the Britons
>Celts. Perhaps the Romans only usually called the Gauls Celts when
discussing their
>ethnography and called them Gauls when discussing them as a political or
geographic
>group.
>

this is something that i've specifically looked into (as opposed to the
continental stuff) - so i feel on firmer ground here about making
suggestions re. i.d.. So i'll prepare something and post ASAP 

>> Socialization is not a creation of any identity, whether we define
>>>identity as that which can be observed in others, or that which can be
>> stated by
>>>ourselves. ..Socialization is only an agency by which cultural traits can
>> be spread. [snip]
>>
>> agreed. socialisation is a process (through which identity might be
>> constructed - I don't expect you to agree with that bit!).
>
>But I would agree with that in present time applications. Only the causes
of the
>socialization leading to self-identity would be completely occluded from
those who
>expressed that identity -- unless, perhaps, they had experinced some very
good and
>highly intense Jungian psychotherapy which brought some of this unconscious
content
>to consciousness. 

in the past, as in now, it's generally a combination of the habitual (i.e.
there's no discursive consideration of the process) and discursive
expression of identity - often employed in the creation of power
differentials, and / or in the creation of direct oppositions or similarities. 

Now, as the collective unconscious is, after all, "collective"
>pertinent details could be partially gleaned by any human being who would
use these
>techniques. It would just be more difficult as it could only be accessed via a
>personal consciousness as there is no direct route between the collective
>consciousness and the collective unconsciousness that does not go through the
>personal consciousness. The collective consciousness, itself, is a form of
>aberration and is often dangerously so for society. Jung called "isms"
'wretched'.

i'm embarking on social memory studies, so i can perhaps get back to you on
this!

>>>As socialization is an animal trait, it cannot be expressed as a cause for
>>>differentiation of social practices within a species.
>>
>>>Such differences can be caused by reactions to features of the environment,
>> learning new traits by obversation etc.
>>
>> I agree with the last bit, but, as you clearly come from an evolotionary
>> perspective, we must agree to differ re. the construction of identity,
>> standing on two sides of a theoretical void!
>
>Yes, I do come from an evolutionary perspective, if only because the basics of
>Celtic numismatics were laid down by Sir John Evans who was considerably
influenced
>by Darwin and stated such. It never separated from that foundation, at least by
>anyone who has even the remotest clue about the subject ;-)
>
>On the other hand I have always one foot in this theoretical void of which you
>speak. In my 58 years of accumulating wisdom which falls far short (I hope)
of any
>impending senility, I have seen opposing camps as often bearing part of the
truth,
>and each part seems to be the very part that the other lacks. So much so,
that the
>views appear (to the parties involved), not to bear any resemblance to each
other. I
>instinctively look for the common details, or for the missing factors which
could
>become common details. This is why I took the classical authors many
references to
>Pythagorism among the Celts very seriously and did not dismiss them out of
hand,
>glibly, like so many have done who belonged to some "camp".
>

there have long been oppositions between the 'primordialist' (i.e.
evolutionary) and ''instrumentalist' (i.e. social constructionist)
approaches to identity - and these arguments could go on ad infinitum.
However, it's been recognised that this is not particularly helpful, so now
(hopefully) each side accepts they'll never agree on the basics; each 'camp'
seems to produce work that can be built upon by both 'sides' - there is a
lot of cross-over (if there wasn't, we'd both be wrong, let's face it). so,
e.g. i can accept that there's a psychological aspect to identity, just  as
evolutionist will accept that social identity may be emphasised as a
survival strategy - this way, we do (hopefully) get to see the 'missing bits'.

 and you've shown yourself to be a theorist, John, by application of your
evolutionary / psychological knowledge (and coming to very similar
conclusions to those within academic circles, applying particular
theoretical approaches). you've, approached the subject by studying it
within a particular theoretical paradigm. it's enabled you to produce
coherent classification systems, which may not have been so forthcoming if
your approach would have been more haphazard.

>I have an instinctive fear of over-arching theories as I am always afraid
that I
>might become trapped inside some set of neural pathways and might never
extricate
>myself from them. I suppose it is a form of intellectual claustrophobia,
but Aaron
>Lynch, in his studies of memetics, did identify these neural pathways as
being very
>dangerous to innovation.
>

i understand this - when i started my research on ethnicity i came from a
uni with no theoretical studies at all, as wasn't intending to do a
theoretical thesis. but my supervisor suggested i undertook ethnicity
studies because of the empirical experience i'd had previously. so it was he
who suggested what approach i took (if i'd gone to ucl, i may have ended up
an evolutionist, who knows?). i do think, well what if i was put on the
wrong track by my supervisor (sorry if you're out there - but you have to do
this sort of questioning)? so, i've read evolutionary stiff, and a lot of it
makes sense; but then i look at the otherside of the argument, in which i
place a lo t of conviction, and in which i now more experience, so i
research from that perspective. but i continue to read stuff from 'the other
side' (i use shennan quite a bit e.g., but don't agree with everything he
says), and listen to what they have to say - i find that this makes me
reassess the usefulness of my approach, and irons out problems.  researches
/have/ to take this sort of approach, being open to other arguments - this
way we make progress - and many, if not most, do

what it boils down to is that (and both 'sides' agree with this) people
often behave in similar ways to particular situations (e.g. conflict, early
socialisation, territorial expansion, etc.), although the actual way they do
so is situationally and historically contingent. so when we look in the past
at people's behaviour to these situations, we see it follows the same
patterns as people today - so we look for the patterns. we're not assuming
that everyone's the same - it's through study of a wide variety of societies
ethnographically that we can see how variously culture may be used in
emphasisng identity - but there's no reason to suppose that people in the
past did not respond in similar ways as all the varied people do today to
particular situations - this is one of the bases for the 'animal traits'
arguments (whatever the cause, i.e. animal response or social construction,
the responses are the same). but we need to look at the specific ways this
was done in specific temporal and situational contexts. 

>There is no way to express identity without language -- even sign language,
gestures
>and art are forms of language.

no, of course not. what i'm saying is that we can't assume that everyone
speaking a celtic language held an over-arching celtic identity. like we
can't assume everyone speaking an english language sees themselves as english

>>>When you say that religion is sometimes more important, perhaps you are
>> referring to the ways in which cultures have been identified.
>>
>> take for example the northern irish conflict, or the balkans, or the current
>> the middle east conflicts...
>
>I look at the religious content of such conflicts (which are often only a
veneer or
>an excuse over other social factors)as being instances where two groups of
people
>are fighting over their choice of metaphors which they cannot identify as
metaphors
>and believe to be an independent reality.
>
oh absolutely, religion may often conceal other oppositions. but this is
where evolutionary and interpretative approches may diverge - from the
latter stance, i'd have to mention the significance of agency, so religious
agendas may often conceal political ones, eg. (and agency is not always
fully-conscious, but that's another topic)

>[snipped] I feel that local developments might
>persist through cultural changes... 

i agree with this, and have just been working on the significance of local
and regional identities in cornwall during the roman period (and
particularly after, when things start to change).

>...and would not be very defining in the identity of
>those who have adopted them.

not sure what you mean here - do you mean, local developments being not very
significant re. identities?

all the best,

K
  

You can unsubscribe yourself by logging in on the list archives page at https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CELTIC-L&X=36DAE1476AF514EF73, selecting the 'join or leave Celtic-L' link and going through the unsubscription routine there.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager