9.16.09 Reflection

Having heard but never known what CR was, this week's readings were interesting for their implications and frustrating for the ways scholars nit-pick. The main theme I saw from critics of CR was that nothing can be defined adequately to have a discussion. This is the dance of the post-modernists. We don't know what culture is, we don't know what language is, we can't define what "English" is (Casanave 38). My god, we have to start somewhere. Words have meaning, they have definitions, these definitions limit what we can discuss - and that's their point. If culture means everything, then it might as well mean nothing. The Atkinson/Matsuda conversation carried this further with the criticism that if CR is to become a genuine field, it must have a theoretical basis, or that it must start with observable data. We have to start somewhere. Don't worry if the term is limiting, don't worry if "intercultural" suggests "A" when you'd rather focus on "B". It's a word, we're smart enough to go beyond it. If the field isn't progressing, then we'll change it. Manufactured problems, imagined roadblocks, and self-indulgent musings on definitions get us nowhere - because even when successful, we end up tearing down the term because it's too limiting. It may be intellectually stimulating, but this kind of wheel-spinning gets nothing done.

As for the concept of CR or IR, it makes intuitive sense - we are composed from our language, our language shapes the way we think, what we can think, and how we communicate. A culture does not create a word until it needs one. A friend once told me of a small tribe in Africa that has no terms for directions, positions, or locations as we know of them. Instead, everything is referenced based on its location to either the River or the Forest. This culture does not have words for circumnavigate or kilometer because they don't need them. They have no use for the concept and have thus not established a definition.

I was speaking to Bee today and he raised an interesting point - if it is true, so what? What do we do with this knowledge? If we can identify general patterns of thought based on the writing of specific cultures (of course this won't apply to everyone, but if we can see patterns in the aggregate of texts), then what do we do? Sequester students? Call them out? How does this aid us in teaching? I don't know, but I'm sure it can help us somehow. The readings suggest that we're still trying to figure out the specifics.