Notes - for fellow diarylanders!
Guestbook - for outsiders!
|
|
2002-03-09 - 2:21 a.m. Two days in a row full of activity. Too much for my feeble brain/body. Um, I don't think I've got anything. Hang on, I'll reproduce something I wrote for my supervisor. - A: Hallo. B: Hi. A: Is something bothering you? B: Oh, it’s nothing, really. A: Well, go ahead and tell me anyway. B: Ah, I feel like I’m nitpicking. It’s just that I was reading this thing... A: Yes? B: What exactly hardly matters - I mean, I’ve seen it done plenty of times before, and I react the same way every time. A: Seen what done? B: When someone is writing about something and they prise it or valorise it or whtever by using the adjective “childlike”, and they then immediately qualify the statement by saying something negative about the term “childish”. A: So why does that bother you? B: Doesn’t it bother you? A: Well, I’ve seen it done plenty of times, but I can’t say I’ve ever really thought about it much. B: I guess I’m angry at myself as much as anything else, because I fell for it the first time. A: Fell for it? B: I took the bait. I mean, childlike, that’s good, right? Think of the associations - childlike wonder, childlike innocence, childlike enthusiasm... A: Childlike openness? B: Right. Now what about the associations for childish? A: Um, Childish tantrum, childish behaviour... B: Meaning bad behaviour. A: Childish petulance, childish mistake... B: And so on ad infinitum. A: So that’s what you fell for? B: Well I just glibly accepted that it was a good thing to be childlike, but a bad thing to be childish. A: Well, it would seem that this is the case. B: But is it? See, after I’d seen it a few times, I began to wonder, what exactly is the distinction? I mean, apart from the associations? A: You can’t take a word apart from its associations, though, can you? B: Well, indeed, but let’s remain aware of them but put them to the side for a moment, so to speak. A: Alright. B: So, what does “childlike” mean, by itself? Doesn’t it mean “in the manner of a child”? A: I suppose so. B: Well, take one of those associations we had before: is “childlike enthusiasm” an enthusiasm that is the manner of a child’s enthusiasm? A: That makes it a bit clearer I think; yes. B: Ok, now, what does “childish” mean? Doesn’t it also mean “in the manner of a child”? A: So childish petulance is petulance in the manner of a child? B: Exactly! A: So you’re saying both terms mean the same thing? B: Well, they do and they don’t. I mean they each tend to modify a different set of nouns, but they modify them in the same way. A: Yes, I see. B: But the fact that they have different associations is, as you point out, not insignificant. A: So is it possible to differentiate exactly how they’re similar and how they’re different? B: Well, now we’re getting into the rather tricky terrain of semiotics and the answer is, I think, probably not. A: (laughs) B: Nonetheless, does the foregoing discussion give you some idea? To put it as briefly as possible, the modifications are the same, but the associations are different? A: Yes, that seems clear enough. B: Well, there’s one other thing to add, and that is that it seems to me, just from the words, then it would appear that “childish” is closer to describing an actual child. A: How so? B: Well, just because it’s a metaphor rather than a simile. When someone is “childlike” then they are temporarily or partially like a child in some way, but it’s only remarkable because they’re not actually a child. A: Hmm. B: You can describe an actual child’s behaviour as being especially “childish”, or talk about their “childishness”... A: ...but you can’t talk about them being “childlike” anymore than you can talk about an anchor being “anchor-like”. B: That’s it. A: So? B: Well, I feel like I’ve already said it, just about, what makes me cross about the elevations of “childlike” and the denigration of “childish”. A: I think I can guess, too, but why don’t you go ahead and spell it out. B: Well it seems to me that by making this division we’re basically throwing away the actual children, while hanging onto a nostalgic fantasy of the things we suppose we liked about them, all the while praising ourselves for the acuteness of our discernment. A: Golly. B: Golly? A: Well, it’s rather strong language, isn’t it? B: (smiles) You think I’m just having a fit of childish pique? A: (laughs) That would be overstating the case a bit, I think. But look, the process you’re describing in relation to children isn’t unique, is it? B: I don’t imagine so. A: I mean, isn’t this what the Hegelian dialectic always does? You make some sort of division in something and put all the good stuff on one side and all the bad stuff on the other. B: Yes, it seems that’s what I’ve been talking about. A: But we need these binary divisions in order to be able to perceive things, don’t we? B: I think I get wht you’re saying, but why don’t you elaborate a little? A: Well, what does “child” mean, in the first place? Doesn’t it mean “not an adult”? B: And adult means “not a child”. A: Right. So it’s by dividing things into categories that we make sense of the world - but the dividing is vital. B: Like the rainbow. A: Hmm? The rainbow? B: Well, the rainbow is the spectrum of visible light. If we didn’t make some sort of division between the different colours then we wouldn’t be able to see - or make sense of what we could see, which comes to the same thing. A: Which is why when someone draws a picture of a rainbow, there are always lines between the different bands of colour - because symbology is all about divisions - but specific divisions. B: And once a division is made, I mean, once it’s culturally in effect, you can’t unmake it - you can only overlay it with more divisions. A: Ok, yes, um - where were we? B: Uh... A: Oh that’s right, I was trying to justify the division between “childish” and “childlike”. B: Yes, that’s right. A: Now, you seemed to be trying to convince me that there’s something artificial about the division between the two? B: I suppose that was what I was doing, yes. A: But isn’t every division between words an artificial one? Or a natural one? I mean, they’re all artificial equally, aren’t they? B: Hmmm. Well, I find it hard to argue with that. But some divisions sort of feel wrong, if you know what I mean? Um, for example - I can’t seem to think of a good example. Unless - well, there’s the vocabulary of prejudice. You know, the word that a bigot uses and the word a non-bigot uses for the same thing... A: Like “asylum seeker” and “queue jumper”? B: Yes, that’s it. They seem to have that same quality of having the same “real” meaning, but different implications... A: Although, as you suggested a moment ago, a lot of those implications are about the speaker as much or even more than they are about the person spoken of. B: Yes... but I feel like I’m side-tracking you. A: Well, I guess it comes down to this: there are things about children that people like, on the whole, or at least about the idea of children that they like? B: Yes. A: And conversely there are things that they dislike. B: Indeed. A: So it’s this mixture of attraction and repulsion, attached to the same object (or conceptual object) that creates the need for two different ways of saying the same thing, isn’t it? B: I guess so. But I still don’t like it. A: Would it help if they said it another way? If they switched the words around? B: (laughs) Probably not. I guess what would help is to have the author standing by so I could explain to them why what they’ve written makes me unhappy... A: But it wouldn’t be very practical, would it? B: (smiling) Yes, somehoe I don’t see it happening. A: Well, here’s one last thought before we finish for today; what do you think would happen if we didn’t have those two different words? I’m imagining a child/adult dialectic where all the good stuff goes to the adults and all the bad stuff goes to the children. B: I see that. A: So, it’s an example of what you were saying before. of overlaying another division over a previous division; when you divide children’s qualities into two groups, it allows you to admire children without hating adults. B: It seems you still have to hate somone. A: Hmm. Maybe, but I think that’s it for now. B: Yes. Until next time. - "If he's content with a vegetable love Which would certainly not suit me, why What a most particularly pure young man This pure young man must be" - Gilbert and Sullivan
|