Fire & IceFire & IceSymbolism in Symbolism in

Anthropological Anthropological ReflectionReflection

Fire and IceFire and IceSome say the world will end in fire,Some say the world will end in fire,Some say in ice.Some say in ice.From what I've tasted of desireFrom what I've tasted of desireI hold with those who favor fire.I hold with those who favor fire.But if it had to perish twice,But if it had to perish twice,I think I know enough of hateI think I know enough of hateTo say that for destruction iceTo say that for destruction iceIs also greatIs also greatAnd would suffice. And would suffice.

--Robert FrostRobert Frost

Elucidations on C. S. Elucidations on C. S. Peirce’s Peirce’s

Theoretical ThirdTheoretical Third

T.S. Eliot’s “Waste Land”T.S. Eliot’s “Waste Land”Who is the third who walks Who is the third who walks

always beside you?always beside you?When I count, there are only When I count, there are only

you and I togetheryou and I togetherBut when I look ahead up the But when I look ahead up the

white roadwhite roadThere is always another one There is always another one

walking beside youwalking beside youGliding wrapt in a brown Gliding wrapt in a brown

mantle, hoodedmantle, hoodedI do not know whether a man I do not know whether a man

or a womanor a woman——But who is that on the But who is that on the

other side of you? other side of you? Illustration by Gustave Dorehttp://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dante/d19pu/complete.html

Of these lines (lines 359-365), Eliot noted, Of these lines (lines 359-365), Eliot noted, The following lines were stimulated by the The following lines were stimulated by the

account of one of the Antarctic expeditions (I account of one of the Antarctic expeditions (I forget which, but I think one of Shackleton's): it forget which, but I think one of Shackleton's): it was related that the party of explorers, at the was related that the party of explorers, at the extremity of their strength, had the constant extremity of their strength, had the constant delusion that there was delusion that there was one more memberone more member than than could actually be counted.could actually be counted.

Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Eliot, Thomas Stearns. The Waste Land.The Waste Land. New New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922; Bartleby.com, York: Boni and Liveright, 1922; Bartleby.com, 1998. 1998. www.bartleby.com/201/www.bartleby.com/201/. [1/23/03]. [1/23/03]

Charles S. Peirce’s Notion of Charles S. Peirce’s Notion of Triadic CommunicationTriadic Communication

Referent (Sign = something Referent (Sign = something that stands for something that stands for something to somebody in some way),to somebody in some way),

Referring expression Referring expression (Object = what the (Object = what the

sign stands for)sign stands for)

Interpretation (Interpretant = the Interpretation (Interpretant = the understanding the interpreter has)understanding the interpreter has)

Some Notes on Charles S. PeirceSome Notes on Charles S. Peirce At the time Saussure was developing semiology in At the time Saussure was developing semiology in

Europe C.S. Pierce was developing semiotics in the Europe C.S. Pierce was developing semiotics in the United States. He developed a triadic notion whereby United States. He developed a triadic notion whereby ‘sign’‘sign’ (something that stands for something to (something that stands for something to somebody in some way), somebody in some way), ‘object’‘object’ (what the sign stands (what the sign stands for) and for) and ‘interpretant’‘interpretant’ (the understanding the interpreter (the understanding the interpreter has) are involved in the process of communication has) are involved in the process of communication (Malmkjaer, 1991:399). The major difference between (Malmkjaer, 1991:399). The major difference between this and Saussure’s dyadic notion of communication or this and Saussure’s dyadic notion of communication or ‘meaning making’ is that the‘meaning making’ is that the interpretant interpretant (i.e., the (i.e., the interpretation of the sign) is itself a sign thereby inducing interpretation of the sign) is itself a sign thereby inducing further (and potentially endless) interpretation.further (and potentially endless) interpretation.

For example, arriving in the class and seeing a For example, arriving in the class and seeing a completely quiet group of students, the high school completely quiet group of students, the high school teacher’s (i.e., interpreter’s) understanding of this ‘sign’ teacher’s (i.e., interpreter’s) understanding of this ‘sign’ is the principal’s prior presence in the room (i.e., the is the principal’s prior presence in the room (i.e., the ‘object’ is the lingering influence of the principal’s ‘object’ is the lingering influence of the principal’s potential wrath). Reporting this interpretation (now a potential wrath). Reporting this interpretation (now a sign) to a colleague could cause the new interpreter to sign) to a colleague could cause the new interpreter to understand the original sign to imply the object of a understand the original sign to imply the object of a mischievous group of students (who wish to make their mischievous group of students (who wish to make their teacher think the dread principal is about) and to teacher think the dread principal is about) and to interpret the teacher’s telling of the tale as implying interpret the teacher’s telling of the tale as implying that the teacher is a gullible dupe. As well, the ‘dupe-that the teacher is a gullible dupe. As well, the ‘dupe-teacher’ could simply mull the whole situation over in teacher’ could simply mull the whole situation over in his head and arrive at a new interpretation. This his head and arrive at a new interpretation. This process would transform the original process would transform the original interpretantinterpretant into into a sign to generate a new a sign to generate a new interpretantinterpretant that points to a that points to a new object (i.e., the teacher’s thought that the silence new object (i.e., the teacher’s thought that the silence of the students could have implied a renewed respect of the students could have implied a renewed respect for him).for him).

Although this sort of endless interpretation is Although this sort of endless interpretation is something post-modernists could have a lot of fun something post-modernists could have a lot of fun with, I believe that “culture” and the institutions in with, I believe that “culture” and the institutions in which it is inscribed have a tendency to constrain which it is inscribed have a tendency to constrain certain interpretants fairly permanently. For example, certain interpretants fairly permanently. For example, when a person is labeled something like “philanderer” when a person is labeled something like “philanderer” or “special needs child” these interpretations are near or “special needs child” these interpretations are near impossible to “endlessly interpret away” as Pierce’s impossible to “endlessly interpret away” as Pierce’s theory of signs would imply. Regarding this issue at theory of signs would imply. Regarding this issue at least, Pierce was more of a philosopher than a least, Pierce was more of a philosopher than a pragmatist - and I use this term colloquially. Although pragmatist - and I use this term colloquially. Although he is referred to as one of the people who started he is referred to as one of the people who started Pragmatism, a school of philosophy that included Pragmatism, a school of philosophy that included members like William James, John Dewey and members like William James, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, his description of the George Herbert Mead, his description of the interpretantinterpretant (what I refer to as the “theoretical third”) (what I refer to as the “theoretical third”) is far more ideal than it could be. is far more ideal than it could be. Malmkjær, Kriten. 1991 Malmkjær, Kriten. 1991 The Linguistics encyclopedia. New York : Routledge.The Linguistics encyclopedia. New York : Routledge.