All 8 entries tagged Project

My project: Theories – People and words are actually onions

Both the analysis of the texts and the understanding of the acting people are try to avoid cores, of stable meanings and identities. Not because stable meanings and identities occur in real life, but because we need analytical tools to explain the origin of the stability of a given sign or identity, not assume them.

Goffman assumes that reflection that takes the form of managing a range of roles into a coherent identity is also specific role behavior, that this reflection is not made of different stuff than other reflection or human activity. The stability of a performed identity comes through the well executed pragmatic encounter with other people, again and again. Goffman speaks of interaction ritual, and delves deeper into that aspect. So will I, as interaction ritual kan be seen as one of the ways that meanings get fixed, or translated into another level. The social action of skiing is also a learning process where the body becomes better and more automatic at skiing through practice. The same goes with balancing canapes and drinks or kissing appropriatly on cheeks. As knowledge goes from idea to repeated action, it is also fixed.

I claim that this fixing is usefully compared to the way that ideas are fixed as someone witht the necessary power jumpstarts an idea from debate to policy.

Hopefully then, I present a ladder where meanings are never stable, but move from mode to mode, and in the process become stable enough to have real impact on lived everyday lives and individual destinies. Both texts and action can be analysed through the assumption that they are interpreted, but in a “slippery” way, but as these signs are put forth into the world in different ways, they do have an impact on peoples lives.

Lars Eriksen : 09 Oct 2006 00:43 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

My project: Theories – Looking for the fixing of meaning

Now, what has been said in the two earlier posts comes together in a range of quite nice ways. Firstly, it lets me treat both social action and the written words as signs, something that other acting people interpret.

(There is always a space for interpretation, and this space is made narrow or wide by the work that peoples usage of this sign is continuously doing. Often, a word or a behavior or another sign is used less for its meaning, and more for other reasons, such as marking belonging to a group. Stating “I am a Christian” might be a statement of faith, but the socially significant fact about the statement may be the statement of group belonging.)

I can then analyse the written documents and the social action with a set of analytical tools that share some basic assumptions about how meaning is created and how identity is done.

The written documents will be subject to a process looking something like this: I will look for signs that either are or has been under debate. In the case of those signs that seem to have a reasonably stable meaning now, I will try to unpack some of the accompanying connotations that seem to follow the dominating denotation, and trace the terms meaning historically to a time when there was debate and struggles about the meaning of the word. In other words, I wish to historicise the “fixing” of meaning of the term. In many cases, this is a case of a meaning leaping from one form of human expression to another. For instance, from idea to architecture, or from debate to budget.

In the case of those signs that are debated in public debate right now, I will look closely at the competing connotations, the more dispersed secondary meanings that resonate with and under the main arguments.

Lakoff and Johnson have written a classic in this field, metaphors we live by. I will try to learn from their craft, or their art, of seing below the surface of everyday words. But instead of setting the words in relation to other metaphors in a language system, I will instead attempt to go back in history and find a time where the meaning of the term became more fixed.

Lars Eriksen : 09 Oct 2006 00:22 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

My project: Theories – Communicating

The above mentioned acting persons seem to have an urge to interpret what other people do. Some of the things people do is to talk or write. Language is to a certain degree that a bunch of people have signs, for instance sounds or letters – words – , and they tend to refer to similar things with the same signs.

But not quite. Every mind is slightly different, and for the purposes of this study, people do not agree more specifically about a word than necessary to avoid practical everyday confusion. In other words, if I say to you “can you go to the CD-player and put on “One” by U2”, we only need to share meanings to the extent that you do not go and put on “Roll over Beethoven” or some other silly song. However, both you and me might have a range of diffent meanings connected to the sign “One by U2.” For me, it might be a sad song played over and over again at the age of 16 because some girl dumped me. For you it might be “our song” in a beautiful relationship. However, these meanings don´t enter into this particular interaction, and are thus irrelevant.

A way of putting this is to say that a sign has a whole bunch of connotations, and some of these are stable enough across a range of people, that we might call these denotations. Turning a connotation into a denotation is a process in which power is active, but I shall return to that. Also, what might be a stable denotation enough in one situation, might not be pragmatically enough in another situation.

Say for instance that you were hanging out with your girlfriend, and the radio plays “One” by U2. You say to your girl: “MMmm… their playing “One” by U2.” However, even though you have good memories with your girlfriend and this song, it is not sure that she does. So she goes: “Yeah, I wish they wouldn´t, it´s soppy and clishéed” (however you spell that). Argument ensues. You used the phrase “One by U2” to refer not only to a specific song, but to an assumed shared memory or feeling. She meets your utterance with a different assumption, and thus the situation momentarily breaks down.

This fundamental instability of signs is the starting point of my theoretical approach, something akin to poststructuralism, if you need these words. To “fix” a meaning to a sign, people have to write or speak or in other ways act in the world. An acting person puts forward one suggested connotation, and so does the next person. Landing on a working denotation is a matter of power, even of politics in a broad sense. Some signs are very stable, and one might see the fixing of them as relatively benign. Red lights at a traffic crossing, for instance. Power, budgets and beaurocracy has gone into making “stop” a living, real and useful denotation of the sign “red light.”

Other signs are much much harder to pin down, and are the objects of over power struggles with definite and destinyladen disagreements. “Freedom” for instance, is a sign with a multitude of competing meanings, and the difference between them is a real difference, in that the “winner” will define laws and budgets and whatnot according to their understanding.

Furthermore, the “slippage” of meaning is also interesting in another way. Labels of identity are to some extent dependent on threre being a certain accepted or unchallenged range of connotations.

If, on a national day, everyone waves a flag, it seems that this communal action shows the actors involved that other people are doing the same thing with the same symbol. However, if you ask people why they wave a flag, they might have different, even contradictory motivations. One might be waving a flag for the age old traditions of the land, another might be waving the flag in celebration of the constitutional values that allows all cultures to have a place in the land. These people problably don´t agree on very much, but because of the slippery nature of many symbols and rituals, they act so that they both get their identity reinforced by the others action.

Now, this process may also happen in a more micro-sense. One person may act in a way that presents themselves in a particular situation. The other actors on that social stage do not need the same interpretation of the situation, as long as they have an interpretation that works well enough for the situation not to break down in embarrasment.

Lars Eriksen : 08 Oct 2006 23:55 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

My project: Theories – The acting person

People pick theories for different reasons. I guess, as long as theory doesn´t actually contradict empirical findings, and as long as it internally consistent, I see theory as a more or less useful tool for thinking about the world. Does the theory fit the questions I´m asking and the data I have managed to hunt and gather? Moreover, does the chosen or developed theory fit with my style of thinking and analysis? Do I like working with these concepts as analytical tools? This as opposed to choosing Theory as some fundamental ontological Truth, a right way to see the world.

My starting point is that the basic unit of change in society is the acting person. Of course, these acting people are who they are and do what they do because they relate to other people. But they relate to other concrete acting people, not to “society” or “the marked” or “the community.” So, I guess I hold on to a fairly strict form of methodologial individualism. Persons act in the world with or without thinking very clearly about it before acting. We can not assume that thought or reflection is the ultimate starter that kicks the otherwise inert body into action. Thinking, and the capacity for reflexiveness is often portrayed as something that occurs outside of action, free of time and space. On the contrary, reflection and thinking always occurs in concrete situations, maybe on a bus, maybe in a comfy chair whilst stroking a beard (maybe your own), maybe in the gym. In other words, we are in different situations when we reflect on who we are, thinking about how our roles our personality (or the moments that our biography) consists of fit together as a whole, we are in role and action also in these situations, not “behind” or “above” our roles.

The rules and regulations that coordinate our various role behavoirs appear to us the form of reactions from other people we relate to. That we behave differently in different role frames is a given (studying-Lars behaves differently from shopping-Lars). However, some ways of behaving differently will be frowned upon, and some will be perfectly accepted.

In fieldwork, I hope to study how people relate to religion and identity in several different frames. I have a feeling that voiced opinion and behaviour in relation to religion is inside and outside the classroom. In this term, teachers and learners behavoir will to a certain extent be viewed as a series of presentations of self. Both the noticed and the unnoticed cracks and inconsistensies in these self-presentations will be of special interest. Haha: When I say unnoticed, I mean unnoticed by anyone but myself! God, what a typical social scientist assumption – As if I have some elevated viewpoint that allows me to see the unnoticed things… Oh well.

If you are a sociologist, you might have recognized some Erving Goffman here? If not, I can tell you now: I like Eriving Goffman.

I guess this image is most relevant to the fieldwork part of my work, but not quite. Also the production of documents happens in front of desks, with computers or typewriters, actual coffee spilling and backache. So document analyses is not removed from acting persons. Certainly not when the documents are statements of policy, or things that a group of people have produced together. In these cases, a lot of human activity has gone into and shaped the final document.

Also, the picture of the acting person presented above ties in with some thoughts about communication.

Lars Eriksen : 08 Oct 2006 22:11 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

My project: Hunches – What will the documents tell me?

What do I suspect that these documents will tell me? Hopefully, they will take me through a process of change. I will be entering the stage at a moment of secularisation, and I might be leaving the process in a time of de-secularisation. Certainly, I am expecting a kind of parabolic curve, where religion disappears from the scene in its old guise as an actual dominant and shared faith, and then reappears as a cultural resource which is portrayed as giving substance and anchorage to specific cultural identities.

This seems to me to be an issue of agendas. Why is religion so useful in anchoring a sense of cultural identity? A guess might be that religion often is presented, both by its actors and its critics as something fundamentally unchanging. A religious person might say that their values are timeless and eternal in contrast to the superficial and changing times of the moment. A critic of religion might see religious values as a remnant from lost times, a relic that sensible people have left behind them on the path to progress.

This, of course, assumes that history is marching from bad to good, a law-driven and inexorable march towards a brighter and more enlightened future. This is a notion that I find it hard to cope with after Hiroshima and Holocaust, the scientific and rational highpoints of destruction and evil as far as I´m concerned.

So, the assumption that religion is seen as unchanging, or at least slow changing, seems to me to make it a useful tool for anchoring identity, a percieved stable point in a changing world. This is only a partial desecularisation, though. It is a return of Christianity as a cultural meeting point, the anchorage of a imagined community of values. It is not a revival of faith or of theological arguments in politics, as might be seen in American politics.

My other present explanation of the return of the rethoric of Christian heritage to the public sphere, is the idea that we define ourselves in opposition to the most relevant percieved other. In the lived and mediated lives of the average Norwegian, after the collapse of communism and after the collapse of the twin towers, the percieved other is typically a muslim. If the others otherness is framed in religious terms, then “our” “ourness” might also be framed in religious terms. Hence the reappearance of phrases like “our basic Christian values.” in the public sphere.

Lars Eriksen : 06 Oct 2006 23:38 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

My project: what exactly am I going to do?

I guess this entry could be called data collection if this had been a project description. However its not, so I´, going to be more down to earth and tell you what I am actually trying to do. Basically, this project is two-pronged. I´m taking public debate and governmental documents (white papers and curricula) as data to understand what ideas are sloshing around at the times of policy decisions. I´ll be starting in the late 60´s when the schools religious education stopped being the Church of Norways official baptismal training, and I will end in 2002, when the revised edition of the new religious education-subject entered the classrooms. I will read opinion pieces in national newspapers, and I will read official governmental documents.

But how is this turning out in practice? How does the thoughts thought out on paper translate into classroom action, into identity work among the pupils? I really have no idea, but I hope to find out. The second and really interesting part of the research is observation in the classroom. Now, classroom research is practically a seperate strand of methodology that I have only just dipped my toe into, and I hope to learn much more in the near future.

However, I do have some thoughts. Firstly, the teacher is the person that translates curricula into action, policy into something that is “in the world.” Indeapth interviews with teachers about how the feel about their role will be crucial. However, identities are not atomic, or the results of knowledge poured into children from above. Identities are created in interactions between people. I do want to get down to the classroom level to see how interactions between teachers and pupils, and between pupils pan out.

Secondly, I am hoping to visit two schools. One will be a multifaith school, where the classroom actually does include students from different religious backgrounds. The multifaith classroom is mostly a contrast, a scientific test population if you wish.

The other school will be a more homogenous classroom, and this will be the main research interest. As stated before, my interest is really how the Norwegian majority identity is being worked on in response to Norway becoming multireligious. There are still large parts of the Norwegian population where multifaith Norway is still mainly a mediated phenomenon. How does the portrayal of religious identity work in these places?

At present I am planning to be present at the formation of new classes as people move from primary school (age 12) to secondary school (age 13). The establishment of new groups and the negotiations of roles and power relations give heaps of material to study in terms of the constructions of kids sense of self and identity. The main arena of study will be the classroom during religous education classes. Finally, I also want to be present for the celebration of special national and religious events. The classic examples are Christmas and 17th of May, but easter and end of term occasionally has church services. If the school celebrates or marks the festivals of other religiouns, such as Eid, Divali or ramadan, then that will certainly be of interest.

Combining the two kinds of data might be a challenge. But I have some theoretical tools that might help me. Wait and see!

Lars Eriksen : 06 Oct 2006 23:36 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Presenting my project: The why:

Why do I want to do this project?

This is a anti-racist project. Writing this is actually an excercise in lifting my head up above the data and the detailed theories. The basis of my approach towards anti-racist work comes in this case from Steve Biko in South Africa. He is noted for kicking the liberal whites out of his student organisation, claiming that black liberation must be a black initiative. So, his frustrated white friends asked him what their role could be, and he answered: “To fight white racism among the whites.”

Now, this is a difficult subject – it may seem as if Biko wishes there to be strict and rigid boundaries between races, upholding the very categorisations that are to such a large extent the core of racist thinking. It was also a subject which Biko thought more about later, but he upheld his basic thoughts: That liberation is not something you are given, but something achieved for yourself.

This goes also for whites, also caught in a web of harmful categorisations. Majorities in power tend to look at their identities as given, unquestioned and taken for granted. This, I believe, is very much the case of white Norwegians. The prevailing (but maybe fading) metaphor for majority/minority-relations is that of kind host- vs respectful guest. A benign relationship in many cases, and probably better than the battlefields of extremism that may be imagined. But hardly an idea of equality and mutual citizenship.

In stead of looking at the way multifaith Norway affects the multitude of minority identities suddenly present, I will look at the way multifaith and multicultural Norway affects identities among the majority population. It is often glibly acknowledged that of course Norwegianness changes as well in responce to immigration, just look, we now have kebabs!

This is part of of a bandwagon. Yes, sadly, I am not that inventive. The bandwagon in cultural studies and sociology and related subjects I am referringto, is to look at the powerful part in powerimbalanced relations. Such as maskulinities and whiteness.

To say that Norwegianness is socially constructed is pushing in open doors. But hopefully, I can show that the actual constructions that are made are not necessarily the best to prepare Norway for a future where migration is a longstanding fact of life.

My hunch is that there is a lot of good work and life being done in multifaith classrooms, but that the language and the ideas available to speak of this are lacking. Sadly, a strict rights-based language has a taste of coldness and individualism that many in the leftist and humanistic tradition do not feel comfortable with. The consequence is that they try to redefine “Norwegianness” to something very tolerant, and “foreign cultures” to something very colourful and exciting.

This well meant strategy has the weakness of being easily refuted once immigrants behave in badly. Suddenly, the guests are burping and spilling te on your carpet, putting their dirty feet on the table. However, quite a few never asked to be invited…

To me it is clear that immigrants and minorities are not valuable by virtue of how much nice culture they produce, but through their absolute rights as human beings, nasty or nice.

Lars Eriksen : 06 Oct 2006 19:37 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Project presentation: The very short version

The project is called (at present) “Learning to be a Norwegian.” I will look at ways religion is mobilised when a state is trying to create national identity. The case is religious education in Norway. I am keen to keep this a study of connections between religion and nationalism, a study within sociology of religion. I am not an educationalist, and my aim is not primarily to suggest improvements to religious education. At most, this is a welcome side effect.

Lars Eriksen : 06 Oct 2006 19:01 |  Tags: Project |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem