Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA29119 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:07:07 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458A7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Jabbering ! Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:05:08 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I saw the programme.
I was particularly interested in two things, first the comment about the
British midlands being called the Black country, and rituals and dress sense
becoming heavily imbued with black in the late 18th and 19th century,
because of the dark satanic mills, and the mass use of coke.
Second, the theory that what made Britain different from say France and
Germany in terms of the Industrial Revolution occuring in the UK rather than
elsewhere was the social structure of English social clubs.
Again the utility things comes down to differences between material/manifest
uses which tend to be more fixed (although like your knife as a screwdriver
or vice versa, shows they're never totally fixed), and ideational/latent
uses (such as indicators of status etc.) which are highly varied.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2000 10:09 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Jabbering !
>
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >Ask people what a tie is for though- what's its functionality? What is
> the
> >bit of material under your shirt collar supposed to do? I don't think
> most
> >people would know, and would instead ascribe far more less manifest
> >(although no less important) functions like those you mention. The
> problem
> >then becomes one of arbitrariness- why does a strange bit of cloth around
> >one's neck offer all these other (social) functions that they indeed do?
> >
> >Perhaps this is the distinctive element of cultural, as oppsed to say
> >technological, artefacts, in that their (apparent) utility is highly
> >flexible hence behaviours survive long after their origins have been
> >forgotten.
>
> Tools can be extremely flexible. Just ask anyone who ever used a knife as
> a screwdriver! Though there's obviously a distinction to be drawn between
> practical and social/psychological utility. But the main point I want to
> make is that, on any broad definition of culture, i.e. not just fine art,
> technology is part of it. That's what the "industrial evolution" thing is
> about, isn't it?
>
> Talking of which, the second instalment of the show we both saw last week
> was on last night, don't know if you caught it, but again, I don't think
> there was one reference to natural resource depletion. Plenty to economic
> motivation, though! And contrasts with social conditions in continental
> Europe, where innovations tended to be viewed as toys for the rich, rather
> than commodities and income generators for the middle class. England
> really was a nation of shopkeepers!
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ==============================================================This was
> distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 17:07:45 BST