Women Printers, 18th century engraving CultureWork
A Periodic Broadside
for Arts and Culture Workers

June 2003. Vol. 7, No. 3.
Institute for Community Arts Studies
Arts & Administration Program, University of Oregon                   ISSN 1541-938X

 Previous Issues
So, what's a broadside?

This Issue:

Green dot: click for articleA Library as Material Culture

Clayton Funk
Green dot: click for articleText, Reader, Reading
Richard Bear
A Library as Material Culture: Typology and Symbol in the Community
Clayton Funk
A library cannot be confined to a building or a book. It becomes a part of its community and has no single meaning frozen in time. Each user creates their own purpose for the library building and its materials. The library institution and its building becomes an institution of multiple typologies for each user and, therefore, generates particular aspects of culture that tie the library into the material life of the community.  The same may be said of the life of the library staff. In a recent planning meeting for a library renovation, a library staff worked through many Knight Library Reading Roommanagement issues, which had to be settled before the building plans could be finalized. What appeared to be a staff working through a discernment process of what kind of building they wanted was really the process of working towards what kind of library organization they wanted to be. It has been shown that the design of a physical space is evidence of intelligence at work at the time of design1 and the same may be said of an organizational design. As all designs come from mental structures, they can be discussed as two sides of the same “coin.” The users of the building carry out the programs for which the building is designed, and the building is the intermediary between its users and the reasons they come there.

The following discussion is structured in three sections. The first section is about recent trends in library design. The second section is drawn from management and business literatures on organizational change. The third section draws from three important monographs in architecture history and theory to show the seamless connection of architecture and its technologies to social programs inside and outside it, as the “life” given to a library building by architects and users.

Library Architecture

Weiner and Boyden2 discuss the design and construction of library buildings that sustain a community over time. As a commitment to the future of their surroundings, the authors argue that buildings cannot deplete natural resources, cannot create waste, and it must be recognized that they hold and preserve cultural artifacts for future generations. To sustain the community and the future of the library institution, the authors argue for essential design considerations of proper light levels, air quality, and energy efficiency. The neglect of these concerns bears unwanted social, environmental, and economic consequences.

Weiner’s and Boyden’s discussion of sustaining the library over time, is complemented by Harrington’s3 six trends in library design: self-service, flexibility, green building, collaboration between public school and college libraries, aesthetics and the fit of the building to the community. The building must be easy to navigate, and must spend appropriate funds on energy efficient and environmentally friendly parts of the building project, costs of which are usually recoverable over the long term. “Smart” furniture with power outlets and data ports makes contact with remote electronic resources available from anywhere in the building. The symbolic (aesthetic) aspects of design point to the values and beliefs of the library’s community. All make for a user-friendly building that fits the community it serves economically, symbolically, and functionally.

Bazillion’s4 reflections on an experience of a renovation that articulates the “lessons” learned from oversights in the process. All of the guidelines set by the two other articles in this group are exemplified by experience. For example, windows that met architect’s specifications for light filtering and heat reflection were not approved by college facilities and the specified windows were substituted with others that let in too much light. Reading was very uncomfortable in the intense sunlight. In this way, Harrington’s requirements for proper light control and the design of a “green” building were not followed and, therefore, did not sustain the community or its environment effectively, as Weiner and Boyden called for above.

The second group of articles was on management theory and practice, in social science literature. All deal with one or more aspects of organizational change. The most important articles for this discussion call for methods of management that relate directly to the changes that could occur in preparation for and during a library renovation, with the trends articulated in the first group of articles. First, Sims5 defines the varied forms of change that can occur in an organization, mostly around the support of ethical behavior from leaders, policy, and the structure itself. In this way, an organization could develop a healthy personality for processing problems and everyday work, which would also be necessary in formulating goals for a successful renovation. Second is the continuous learning, or self-renewal organization, wherein organizations develop a process of discourse among all staff, who employ reflective methods to improve their job performance. This can be coupled with theories of architectural design, such as in Harris6 and Abel7, who argue in similar ways that buildings can teach users how to use them, a point that supports Harrington’s call, above, for self-service in library architecture.  Reflective, self-learning management approaches can test the physical limits in a building because the social program of the building never remains static, and the building’s plan must be flexible. An example of such flexibility is held in Harrington’s call for fixtures on wheels to make furniture rearrangement easily adaptable to a change in job needs.

Smith and Zane8 reported a scenario of organizational conflict. Two consulting firms were hired to organize two distinct aspects of an organization. When the two firms disagreed over their approaches, the client company benefited when the conflict between consultants brought out some latent problems in the client company. Similar aspects can happen between agencies hired to work together in an architectural renovation. Many hidden tensions can surface over how to organize workspace and become turf battles. If these problems are solved, the library organization can benefit.

Other articles covered knowledge and strategy as the currency that fuels the dynamics of change. Schneider, Klaila, and Zairi9, discuss the transformation of an organization with knowledge and know-how that is transmitted across the culture of an organization. Communication machines and materials facilitate these changes and also determines the form of such knowledge transmission, fit to the communication modes and channels of the organization. Finally, the articles10 describe how learning organizations can hit a glass ceiling, either through an over saturation of their change process or by the limitations of their technology. It is possible that the limits of a library building could place such limits on an organization, which would show a lack of flexible design, as Harrington specified.

Architectural and Social Theory
The third group of readings draws from three monographs on buildings as dynamic technologies, and the relation of a building to its functions, given by the designer and user. First, an important work by critic and historian Lewis Mumford specified that the automation of functions in buildings, made them into machines. These mechanized Singer Building elevator controlsaspects of buildings created a kind of “technocracy” that mediated the functions of buildings and the life of the organizations inside them.11 The essence of any automation—automatic doors, elevators and climate control—results in the timed behavior of their users. As people wait for elevators, and adjust their habits to interior temperatures, libraries also run by the clock. Business hours begin and end by the clock, materials are loaned according to rules of the calendar and the clock, and computers, from data processing to back up, are based on a clock.

Abel12 wrote about more elaborate kinds of automation governed by computers and robots, programmed to perform sequences of tasks, not only one. Like simple clocks, computers and robots can be reprogrammed (or “taught”) to do different tasks, all without the expensive retooling that was common on older assembly line machinery. The life of an organization depends partly on the communication, workflow, and record keeping, discussed by Alford and Klaila, which are only as efficient as the way knowledge and strategy are processed. Similarly, computers like the online public access catalogs in libraries are examples of multiple task machines that centralize tasks performed on information about the circulation of the collection, database management, and the ordering and receiving of materials.

Abel also shows that some buildings are “smart” enough to control some aspect of interior climate from moving parts that are part of the building’s structure, as compared to add-on cooling or heating components. The example that comes to mind is a glass wall of an atrium that controls the daytime, interior temperature with horizontal louvers that open and close, by command of thermostat and computer, to regulate heat and light of the sun. In this way, the building and the movement of its structural components manage some of the temperature regulation, a job that was formerly left to add-on machines, like air conditioners and furnaces.

Finally, the work that brings the social organization and the technologies of the building together is Harris’s13 history of the life cycles of buildings. He argues that the personnel who worked in the early skyscrapers, of the early in the twentieth century, were the information infrastructure of buildings designed specifically for the efficient transmission of information that propelled the work of the company. With their telephones, typewriters, carbon papers, and pneumatic tube systems; paint buckets and maintenance tools, staff were the network of communication, which determined certain aspects of the building’s function, and are predecessors of today’s asynchronic communication of email, and computer driven physical plant systems. As these new structures have taken over jobs once done by humans, buildings begin to take on the typological aspects usually attributed to robots.

Therefore, as a house becomes a home when the family moves in, a library building becomes a community when filled with users and staff. A library building not only sustains a community, as Weiner and Boyden called for, with Harrington’s six trends in design. These literatures discussed together in this way, show that buildings are part of the community, functionally and typologically. The aesthetic qualities of the structure unite many imaginations Dance recital in Knight Libraryaround symbols of their community. Telecommunications reach beyond the library walls, and the community infrastructure of fiber optics and computer networks extends the library into the physical spaces of the community seamlessly. Because these technical and social structures of library and community overlap inseparably, and because of the seamless connection of the community to their library building, the management decisions of the library and its staff are tangible in the community, as they are embedded in the library building plan, its management and information structures.

1. Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: an Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.” (Winterthur Portfolio, 17, no. 1, Spring 1982): 1-19.
2.  James Weiner and Lynn Boyden, “Creating Sustainable Libraries.” (Library Journal Buyer’s Guide, December 2001): 8-10.
3.  Harrington, Drew. “Six Trends in Library Design.” (Library Journal Buyer’s Guide, December 2001): 12-13.
4.  Richard J. Bazillion, “The Wisdom of Insight: a New Library One Year Later” (American Libraries April 2001): 72-74.
5.  Ronald R. Sims, “Changing an Organization’s Culture Under New Leadership,” (Journal of Business Ethics, 25 no. 1:65-78.)
6.  Neil Harris, Building Lives: Constructing Rites of Passages (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.)
7.  Abel, Chris, Architecture and identity: Responses to Cultural and Technological Change, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2000).
8.  Kenwyn K. Smith and Nancie Zane, “Organizational reflections: Parallel Processes at Work in a Dual consultation” (Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35 no. 2, June 1999): 145-162.
9.  William E. Schneider discusses why ideas tied closely to management strategy work and others don’t. He states that culture is most important in an organization [“Why Good Management Ideas Fail: the Neglected Power of Organizational Culture” (Strategy & Leadership, January/February 2000)]., Davis Klaila discusses that knowledge tied to strategy is only effective is an organization knows it works, and all strategies should be tested [“Knowledge as a Transformation Agent.” (Quality Focus, 4 no. 4, 2000: 24-30)]. Zairi, Mohamed and John Whymark discuss the way to carry effective knowledge and know how across the organization can be capsulated in best practices, to embed quality in the culture of an organization. [“The Transfer of Best Practices: How to Build a Culture of Benchmarking and Continuous Learning. (Benchmarking, 7 no 2, 2000: 146-167)].
10.  Jane Linder, “Paying the Personal Price for Performance Strategy & Leadership” (Strategy & Leadership, 28 no. 2, 2000): 22-25.
11.  Mumford discussed the beginnings of the industrial revolution from the invention of the clock, which was a water driven device, used by the Benedictine Monks, to ring bells for prayers at seven regular intervals. Mumford would argue that this was one of the first instances where organizational behavior was governed by time, as measured by machine, rather than the rising and setting of the sun. [Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1934): 14-15.]
12.  Chris Abel, Architecture and identity: Responses to Cultural and Technological Change, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2000): 49-50.
13.  Neil Harris, Building Lives: Constructing Rites of Passages. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999).
Abel, Chris. Architecture and Identity: Responses to Cultural and Technological Change. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2000.

Alford, Randall J. “Going Virtual, Getting Real.” Training and Development, 53 no.1 (January 1999): 34-44.

Bazillion, Richard J. “The Wisdom of Insight: a New Library One Year Later.” American Libraries (April 2001): 72-74.

Harrington, Drew. “Six Trends in Library Design.” Library Journal Buyer’s Guide (December 2001): 12-13.

Harris, Neil. Building Lives: Constructing Rites of Passages. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.

Klaila, Davis. “Knowledge as a Transformation Agent.” Quality Focus, 4 no. 4 (2000): 24-30.

Linder, Jane. “Paying the Personal Price for Performance Strategy & Leadership.” Strategy & Leadership, 28 no. 2 (2000): 22-25.

Mumford, Lewis. Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1934.

Prown, Jules David. “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.” Winterthur Portfolio, 17, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 1-19.

Schneider, William E. “Why Good Management Ideas Fail: the Neglected Power of Organizational Culture.” Strategy & Leadership (January/February 2000).

Sims, Ronald R. “Changing an Organization’s Culture Under New Leadership.” Journal of Business Ethics, 25 no. 1:65-78.

Smith, Kenwyn K and Nancie Zane. “Organizational reflections: Parallel Processes at Work in a Dual Consultation.” Journal of 
Applied Behavioral Science, 35 no. 2 (June 1999): 145-162.

Weiner, James and Lynn Boyden. “Creating Sustainable Libraries.” Library Journal Buyer’s Guide (December 2001): 8-10.

Zairi, Mohamed, John Whymark. “The Transfer of Best Practices: How to Build a Culture of Benchmarking and Continuous Learning. Benchmarking, 7 no 2 (2000): 146-167.


Text, Reader, Reading: Remarks on the Ground of Literate Culture

Richard Bear

1. Text: Creating the Program

ITis a commonplace, dating back to Plato, that writing is storage. We write in hopes of giving continuity to our transitory thoughts over time, but in a sense it is a vain hope. A thought is not a particular thing in the world, but partakes of the nature of a generalization, something which cannot exist as a stone does, but exists at best as a potential whereby events may be brought about that resemble other events because a system (or mind) requires for its continuation that there should be such similarities. Philip Sidney, writing in the 1500s, noted that this gulf between ontological particularity and epistemological generality holds true across all disciplines:
There is no Art delivered unto mankind that hath not the workes of nature for his principall object, without which they could not consist, and on which they so depend, as they become Actors & Plaiers, as it were of what nature will have set forth. So doth the Astronomer looke upon the starres, and by that he seeth set downe what order nature hath taken therein (157).
That is, the astronomer sets down an observation, in hopes of finding the order in heavenly things, but is ultimately deceived if he takes the observation as having any direct relation to the order, if any, that is actually present1 in the heavens:
The Astronomer with his cousin the Geometrician, can hardly escape, when they take upon them to measure the height of the starres. How often thinke you do the Phisitians lie, when they averre things good for sicknesses, which afterwards send Charon a great number of soules drowned in a potion, before they come to his Ferrie? And no lesse of the rest, which take upon them to affirme (168).
So that those who work in knowledge do not work in the world, whatever that may be, but in a constructed world, building a model which it is hoped is like the world, and from which we, as readers, may take away what we will. Sidney is arguing in favor of fiction, by the way, and suggests that the poet's model, in not asserting itself to be about particulars in the world, may have distinct advantages. The fiction writer
worketh, not onely to make a Cyrus, which had bene but a particular excellency as nature might have done, but to bestow a Cyrus upon the world to make many Cyrusses, if they will learne aright why and how that maker made him (157).
This is programming. The Cyrus that is to be bestowed is an encoded Cyrus, awaiting downloading by the reader.

While you are reading you are engaging with the text. Once you have done reading you have read the work. It is necessary to separate "text" from "work" to understand this. Once we have read through to the last line of Paradise Lost, we can now run the entire program (which requires those "natural tears" for its full impact) as a practically extratemporal gestalt. The poem is never actually on the page, only the code for setting up the poem is there. The text contains no work, only the means for recreating the work in the mind. The poem is different upon each downloading; it is a unique patterning that moves almost invisibly from author to reader, by means of but not fully in the text. It lives fully only in the life, individually and collectively, of its readers -- of whom the author is but one. The text is the nexus, the transition point.

    Language is inherently algorithmic. The form of an argument espousing an assertion is "a = b; b = c; therefore a = c." The form of an argument refuting an assertion is "a = b; b not-equals c; thereforenot-equals c."2 Writing is a reduction of language, and carries some but not all of the import of speech, just as speech is a reduction of interpersonal communication, so much of which is body language and not portable, except partially through such media as film and video. Despite the reductions, if it may be presumed the author and the reader have approximately shared assumptions as to what a, b, and c are, the argument, as written and as read, should be persuasive. We tend to think of this method as deduction, and assume that it is done in, of, and about the real world. Yet the central operator, "therefore," takes place only in the minds of the communicants. We proceed strictly by analogy. It is all done in order to create a metaphorical leap of faith. Longer arguments, with the citing of alleged instances to support them, are simply this same structure in the form of routine with subroutines. Hence, programming. An author hopes to communicate something like the author's thought; the thought itself, as a phenomenological event, is gone forever. This analogical structure is ubiquitous in communications, whether explicit, as in science journal articles, or implicit, as in most commercial advertising.You will find this structure, I believe, in all fiction and in all purported nonfiction, and I believe this is Sidney's argument.

2. Reader: Operating System

    We hope to convey something, such as Cyrus, or rather an idea of Cyrus, from one place and time to another, from person to person. Notice the responsibility that is placed on the reader: "if they will learn aright." In Sidney's social context, there was thought to be a universal standard of conduct and knowledge, rooted in the pervasive presence of the state religion and in an educational system that had little to go on beyond the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the Greek and Roman classics (still true for many of us today), so that the "fit reader" would be apt to be one whose goals in reading did not clash with what Queen Elizabeth I, and the power apparatus she represented, would wish them to be. Today's fit reader of Sidney is perhaps the historian of Renaissance thought or literature, who will put the text to different uses than Sidney or his contemporaries could have envisioned. But the take-home message for us today in his insight is that there is in a sense never a particular in writing, only the general; the replicability of the text is its defense against the ravages of time for that very reason. It is, in a sense, not there, not in a book, which is paper that degrades, nor on a disk, where the iron oxide may degrade, but in code, which we decode word by word,  sentence by sentence, from whatever medium has been used as its substrate. Not there, because in the physical world there are no generals, only particulars, whereas in conceptualization, we have if not only generals, then in our individual minds particular conceptualizations which we take for generals.
    And more by sentence3 than by word. All this might be easier to grasp if we understand that there is a reason why most words in dictionaries have more than one definition.4 We cannot know, when we walk into a classroom and see the English word "fault" on a blackboard, whether the preceding class was on geology or ethics. But if the word has been used in an entire sentence, then perhaps we may guess (unless we read only, say, Chinese).

    Stanley Fish remarks in Is There a Text in This Class? that a work barely exists, or, to put it more strongly, never exists until there is a reader (3), and adds that the reader is a socially contexted phenomenon:

Categories like "the natural" and "the everyday" are not essential but conventional. They refer not to properties of the world but to properties of the world as it is given to us by our interpretive assumptions (271).
    A text must have a context to be read.5The reader must have some concept of the signs with which the text has been composed and a conceptualization of the culture in which the text has been produced, in order to derive from the text something like that which the author has envisioned should be derived from it.

stop sign

The word "STOP," in white letters on an octagonal red metal signboard, placed near an intersection, has in some parts of the world a context in which the operation of motor vehicles and the rule of law are brought together; the traffic engineer hopes for a normative outcome in a number of instances.

    When we write for an "intended audience," we are hoping that a majority of our readers will be equipped to download, compile, and run our program in a satisfactory manner. Thus it may be appropriate to consider the reader as analogous to an operating system.

3. Reading: Download, Compile, Run

    It appears to me that a (codex) book, as a phenomenal object occupying a place on the space-time continuum prior to its being seen by a reader, is no more than compressed vegetable fiber and a quantity of tacky black dye derived from vegetable matter either directly, or remotely (from coal tar). But once it is presented to those with education appropriate to a particular interpretation of the object, it becomes something more: a nexus, a bridge where the act of reading flows the work, incrementally, to the reader. It is a storage device, just as we think of it, but it does not store the work, it stores the means of access to the work, containing, in the placement of shaped dried droplets of dye, a coded program to be run. We open the book, we look at the page, our eyes travel, in cascading saccades, left to right or right to left, or perhaps top down, depending on the language from which the program is derived. Sentences are downloaded, absorbed in a temporal sequence into memory, in such a way that the thoughts, images, or clusters of thoughts and images which the program calls forth (uniquely in each reader) are compiled in a way analogous to, but not necessarily identical with, phenomenal experience of the sensory-derived "real world."6

    The experience of "reading the book" creates the work almost as a standing wave of thought, to which we add bits of the whole as each sentence is acquired. What Hans Robert Jauss, Hans-Georg Gadamer, or Stanley Fish might refer to as "context" or "horizon"7 comes into play here -- but not as the active determinant of the passive reader's unique experience of engaging with the text. Rather the reader actively assimilates the program coded within the book into the ongoing experience of her or his own life, weaving meaning into the code and deriving meaning from the results, against a background of experience from which material is selected for the weaving. No two readings are identical, as no two readers, including the same reader twice, stand in the same place or breathe the same air. The program runs, and because the reader is a very fast neural-net processor, the program loops, is entirely recalculated with each sentence, deferring the final run to the reading of the final sentence. A programmer might see in this what is called brute-force programming; our brains don't handle the processing very elegantly. But that they do this at all is miracle enough.

    We easily look upon a text, in book or file form, as a stable object (at least until the author gets round to messing with it again), but it is not. The continuum is comprised of both space and time. Not only do substrates deteriorate (paper, film, disks, CDs), readers also change, even as they are reading. Unlike other operating systems, readers are modified by all programs (texts).

All texts have been hypertexts since the day that two texts were available in the same code and the same reader read both. Texts refer to one another by the mere fact of their existence in a common code; they refer to one another in citation and reference; they refer also to the external "world" and to other places within themselves, just as HTML documents do. Reference is the meat of every sentence in every text, for a text that refers to nothing is itself necessarily blank. So the reader reaches out, in reading, to touch in neural model all that has gone before, concurrently is, and might be. It is an act of creating, within, something new, a realignment of posited conjectures and affirmations that would have been difficult or impossible to achieve had no one attempted the coding of the program.

    I think that as we examine the act of reading, especially in a non-hierarchically networked world, reader-response theory will mature from that which it now is, too easily dismissed by its detractors as leaving no place for the author, into a model8 in which the reader creates the work but acknowledges a dynamic partnership with the author, whose programming of the text is a real work, without which the work in the reader's mind could never have come to be.9


1. Sidney's strength is that he argues for "poesie" by arguing a reinterpretation of the epistemological ground of knowledge. That his insight has implications beyond "poesie" is corroborated by remarks since made by others whose field of consideration is the sciences and not literature.
. . . metaphor has the same general properties as reality; reality is not thought or understood otherwise than by metaphor. (Bachelard, 64)

Statements can be logically justified only by statements. (Popper, 43)

What makes insensible things intelligibly describable is analogy, notably the special form of analogy known as extrapolation. (Quine, Word and Object, 14)

. . . utterances about physical objects are not verifiable or refutable by direct comparison with experience. They purport to describe, not experience, but the external world. They can be compared with the world only through the medium of our experience of that world, but the connection between our experience and the world already  involves a step of hypothesis or inference which precludes any direct and conclusive confrontation of the utterance with its subject matter. There is many a slip betwixt objective cup and subjective lip. (Quine, Methods of Logic, xii)

2. Readers familiar with Predicate Calculus here may be thinking, "oh, but this should be a discussion of modus ponens and modus tollens; and he's being much too simplistic here." If I were a brilliant person I would undertake an argument that Predicate Calculus might indeed be a model for the next fruitful direction in literary criticism, with a look at discourse as possible-worlds theory. But I will leave this to the philosophy professors. I'm interested in shaking a few readers from the superstition of textual essentialism, but don't claim to have a coherent theory of my own. If you will read Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid I believe you will, yourself, think more useful thoughts than any you find in this essay. But even that author makes no claim beyond the tentative.

3. Here I gloss over an important point for the sake of brevity. The argument of Jeremy Campbell in note 5 below is that meaning resides in context; words can only be regarded as unambiguous when they reside in sentences, whether actually present or implied. Castiglione comes tantalizingly close to arguing this view in the Courtier:

    I would know then, quoth the Count, whether this stile and measure which you speake of, arise of the sentences or of the wordes?
     Of the wordes, answered Sir Frederick.
     Do you not think then, quoth the Count, that the wordes of Silius and Cornelius Tacitus are the very same that Virgil and Cicero use? and taken in the same signification?
     Sir Fridericke aunswered: They are the very same in dede, but some yl applyed and dyverslye taken.
     The Count aunswered: In case a manne should pyke out of a booke of Cornelius and of Silius, al the woordes placed in other signification then is in Virgil and Cicero, (whiche should bee verye fewe) woulde you not then saye that Cornelius in the tounge were equall with Cicero, and Silius with Virgil?
     Then the L. Emilia: Me thinke (quoth shee) thys youre dysputation hathe lasted to longe, and hathe been verye tedyouse, therefore it shall bee best to deferre it untill an other tyme.
4. I. A. Richards, writing in 1936, commented on this:
A chief cause of misunderstanding . . . is the Proper Meaning Superstition. That is, the common belief . . . that a word has a meaning of its own (ideally, only one) independent of and controlling its use and the purpose for which it should be uttered. This superstition is a recognition of a certain kind of stability in the meanings of certain words. It is only a superstition when it forgets (as it commonly does) that the stability of the meaning of a word comes from the constancy of the context that gives it its meaning. (11)
5. Jeremy Campbell has a very handy anecdote for illustrating the necessity of context:
The cable had been sent from Paris . . . PLEASE SEND ME FIFTY DOLLARS AMERICAN EXPRESS NICE LETTER OF EXPLANATION FOLLOWS LOVE LOU. The message presented no problem to Mrs. Tribus, although the word "nice" was a little strange . . . to Tribus himself however, it looked wrong. He knew that there were three American Express offices in Paris and the cable should have specified which one . . . Then he realized that "nice" was not an adjective . . . but the name of a town on the French Riviera. . . because of his prior information, Nice was more probable than nice in the context of the whole message. (65)
The context must include geographical knowledge of France greater than that Paris is in France, otherwise some of the information in the cable is simply not there.

6. Or perhaps it is the same after all. Biologists have begun remarking that this analogical nature of sensory interpretation is not limited to reading, but is the universal mode of animals and in a sense even plants in responding to the information obtained from their environments. Rupert Reidl comments:

Life is a hypothetical realist . . . there are many indications that support the reality of the world . . . but none of them is logically convincing. However, the solution that living creatures have found for the reality problem avoids deductive conclusions and depends on probabilities. (19)
Roland Barthes compares life itself to language:
Today we recognize in the living organism the same structures as in the speaking subject: life itself is constructed as a language. (100)
But these are not new ideas. I. A. Richards remarked in 1936, almost as an aside, that "The theory of interpretation is obviously a branch of biology . . . ."(12) I recently, while standing in line prior to a university convocation, quoted Richards to a noted English professor, who said, a bit patronizingly, that, "Well, no, but language is a branch of biology." I was flabbergasted. Language is a thing studied, biology is a study. "Theory of interpretation," or literary criticism, is a study. Throughout the humanities, this confusion of apples and oranges exists in a profusion with which, say, biologists or computer scientists are relatively unencumbered.

7. Jauss spoke of the "horizon of expectations" which the culturally contexted reader brings to the work: "The coherence of literature as an event is primarily mediated in the horizon of expectations of the literary experience of contemporary and later readers, critics, and authors" (166).

8. Or if you prefer, "mapping." Mary Catherine Bateson has written effectively on this:

Any kind of representation within a person of something outside depends on there being sufficient diversity within him to reflect the relationships in what he perceives.... One reason why poetry is important for finding out about the world is because in poetry a set of relationships get mapped onto a level of diversity that we don't ordinarily have access to. (287-289)
9.     The implication of all this for textual studies is that while the work of editors and critics in elucidating the texts that have come down to us has been real work for which we can be grateful, we should never, metaphorically speaking, place more weight on our theory of copy-text and the rule of authorial intentions than it can bear. Jerome McGann rightly criticizes the direction such studies have taken: "In asking us to analyze textual problems -- indeed, to decide the most basic textual issues -- within a sharply restricted analytic field, these approaches have tended to suffocate textual studies as well as the larger enterprise of which they are a part." (119). He argues, I believe persuasively, for a look into social context when editing, and for withholding judgment as to authoritative text -- that final intention, for example, is not always the best or only useful form of a text, assuming we have in hand anything we have the right to call "final intention." He cites Auden's "September 1, 1939" as a famous instance:
The instruments agree that this is one of Auden's most important works, so that a collected edition without it -- particularly a posthumous edition -- seems an anomaly. Agreement is also general that the removal of the eighth stanza weakens the poem. In all respects, then, the case illustrates the relative nature of authority in matters dealing with cultural products like poems . . . .  this final Auden example graphically reveals the ambiguity in a concept like the authority of the text. The work we know as "September 1, 1939" exists in print in several different versions, and one of these is an absent text (as it were), a suppressed poem. (88-89)
But notice also McGann's almost offhand inclusion of "the larger enterprise." Like Sidney, for whom literature was but one aspect of the single enterprise of constructing a general understanding of the world, McGann points toward an epistemological unity. As the sciences and the humanities, like mutually unknown continents, drift inevitably together, our cultural cartographers must begin to work toward a world map.

Works Cited

Bachelard, Gaston. The Philosophy of No. Trans. G. C. Waterston. New York: The Orion Press, 1968.

Barthes, Roland. The Rustle of Language. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1986.

Bateson, Mary Catherine. Our Own Metaphor: A Personal Account of a Conference on the Effects of Conscious Purpose on Human Adaptation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.

Castiglione, Baldessar. The Booke of the Courtier. Tr. Thomas Hoby. Found online 5/21/02 at Renascence Editions: <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/courtier/courtier1.html>.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge, HUP 1980.

Campbell, Jeremy. Grammatical Man. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Hofstader, Douglas R. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. A Metaphorical Fugue on Minds and Machines in the Spirit of Lewis Carroll. New York: Random House. 1980.

Jauss, Hans Robert. "Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory." Trans. Timothy Bahti.  In Adams, Hazard, and Leroy Searle, Critical Theory Since 1965. Tallahassee: FSUP, 1986.

McGann, Jerome J. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago: UCP, 1983.

Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Quine, Willard Van Ormond. Methods of Logic. New York: Holt, 1950.

Quine, Willard Van Ormond. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MITP, 1960.

Reidl, Rupert, and Robert Kaspar.Biology of Knowledge: The Evolutionary Basis of Reason. Trans. from the third German edition by Paul Foulkes. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: OUP, 1936.

Sidney, Sir Philip. The Defence of Poesie <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/defence.html>. See Adams, Critical Theory Since Plato. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1971.

See also Richard's Commonplace Book <http://epud.net/~bears/common.html>.

Clayton Funk is a webmaster for distance education in the Department of Art Education at The Ohio State University. He moved to OSU from New York City, where he was an art educator at SUNY, New Paltz and a librarian at Teachers College, Columbia University. He has published articles about the history of art education and mass culture, and is also interested in the relation of informal education to the material culture of architecture and the invisible "architecture" of the Internet.

Richard Bear holds a B.A. and M.A. in English and an M.S. in Arts Management from the University of Oregon. He is the circulation and personnel supervisor of the Document Center of the University of Oregon Libraries. He has authored several books of poetry, two of which were nominated for the Oregon Book Awards, and has a novel in progress. He is editor of CultureWork, and also editor of Renascence Editions, an Early Modern electronic book depository. Richard maintains an independent small press in Pleasant Hill, Oregon.

CultureWork is an electronic publication of the University of Oregon Institute for Community Arts Studies. Its mission is to provide timely workplace-oriented information on culture, the arts, education, and community. For links to other sites of interest, see the ICAS links page. For previous issues of CultureWork, visit the Previous Issues page. Prospective authors and illustrators please see the Guidelines.

Opinions expressed by authors of CultureWork broadsides do not necessarily express those of the editors, the Institute for Community Arts Studies, or the University of Oregon.

Arts and Administration | The Institute for Community Arts Studies (I.C.A.S.)

©2003 The Institute for Community Arts Studies unless otherwise noted; all other publication rights revert to the author(s), illustrator(s), or artist(s) thereof.

Editor: Richard Bear.                                       Advisor: Dr. Douglas Blandy

Comments to: mfinison@darkwing.uoregon.edu