Professional Documents
Culture Documents
<LINK "sho-n*">
"sho"
DOCINFO
TITLE "Wittgenstein and his Philosophy of Beginnings and Beginnings and Beginnings"
KEYWORDS "practices, bodily reactions, new possibilities, representational-referential meaning, relationally-responsive meaning, dialogical"
WIDTH "150"
John Shotter
The revolutionary nature of Wittgenstein’s philosophy has still not been fully
appreciated. We have still not been sufficiently struck by its very practical
nature, by its highlighting of our ordinary, everyday ways of making sense
and of understanding, and by the very different way of seeing our world and
ourselves in our world that it requires of us, as well as the new methods for
understanding he introduces to us. If we had been, as a group of specialists
in talk and its relations to its surrounding circumstances, we would not in all
likelihood be sitting here today in a conference room sitting listening to a lot
of decontextualized, closely reasoned talk. We would, I think, as co-practitio-
ners of one or another kind of social practice, be talking in the context of the
practice with other co-practitioners, drawing each other’s attention to
previously unnoticed aspects of it, thus to elaborate and refine its character.
Beginnings
things, but with occurrences happening for yet another first time, events
unique to the unique circumstances of their occurrence.
Illustrated here is one aspect of the new way of seeing our world to which
Wittgenstein introduces us. He draws our attention to what goes on in the
background to our lives, that there is a whole unnoticed world there which
is a precursor to the projects and consciousness of individuals, existing prior
to any thoughts, perceptions, actions, evaluations, or words of our own. In
fact, as he sees it, we owe our very being as the kind of individuals we are
to our embedding in a ceaseless stream of spontaneously responsive, living,
bodily activity going on between the others and the othernesses in our
surroundings, intrinsically relating us to them — I shall call it relationally-
responsive activity or joint action. “Words have meaning only in the stream
of life”, he claims (1990: No. 913). Not only do we owe what stable forms
of life we live between us to their continual reproduction in this stream of
spontaneously responsive activity, but also, strangely, whatever possibilities
that there are for their development and change. This background stream of
activity, this “precursor world”, is full of beginnings and beginnings and
beginnings.
In the past, in our studies of ourselves, we have focused on two great
realms of activity: (1) on behavior, on naturally happening events beyond our
agency to control, to be explained in terms of natural causes; and (2) on
action, on events for which we as individuals take responsibility, and explain
in terms of our reasons. Further, without going into the whole Cartesian
history of it, we have treated the world around us, not only as an external
world, but as a dead world of mechanisms, consisting in an assemblage of
externally related objective parts — parts which can exist as the entities they
are whether they are a part of a mechanism or not. This precursor world of
spontaneous, relationally-responsive, living, bodily activity, or joint action,
constitutes a third realm of internally related activities quite distinct from
these other two, a realm in which my activity only has the character it has in
relation to your’s, in relation to your response to it.
It is within this third realm of living, responsive activity, this background,
precursor world, that I think we should see Wittgenstein’s philosophy as
<LINK "sho-r1">
"sho-r5">
operating. When he remarks that “our attitude to what is alive and to what
is dead, is not the same. All our reactions are different” (PI: No. 284), I
think we should take him very seriously. It is precisely the move from a
dead, mechanically connected world to a living world of responsive relations,
that is so crucial.
The dialogical
Awaking to wonder
Invisible ‘presences’
But how can this be? How can it seem that there is a third agency making
demands on us like this, when we are in interaction with our surroundings?
Because, as we saw above, the outcome of a second person’s spontaneous
responses to the expressions of a first can be attributed to neither of them;
what is produced is public property, it is theirs, or to put it another way, it
belongs to their world. Further, because it has been ‘shaped’ by their respon-
sive reactions, both to each other and to their surroundings, it shows intelli-
gence in its calls, in its requirements; it offers them ‘invitations’, so to
speak, as to their next possible steps. Indeed, it seems to show — to display
BEGINNINGS AND BEGINNINGS AND BEGINNINGS 357
primeval chaos of the world that is a precursor to the world of our self-
conscious and intellectual projects, is that “it is our acting, that lies at the
bottom of the language-game” (OC: No. 204). In other words, the real
foundations of our inquiries can only be found in unique, fleeting, only once-
occurrent, dialogically-structured moments, in specific concrete circumstanc-
es, when in responsive contact with others around us. It is this which has not
struck us before.
The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of
their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something —
because it is always before one’s eyes.) The real foundations of his
enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unless that fact has at some time struck
him. — And this means; we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most
striking and most powerful. (1953: No. 129)
But if he is in his writings to strike us in ways in which we not been struck
before, besides being poetic, Wittgenstein must also be dramatic. More than
merely touching on a ‘something’ and then moving on, as we do in our daily
routines, he must make the invisible currents, the dynamic structures in the
streaming of our lives, visible to us in some way. He must, as in an artistic
presentation or performance, dramatize them in some way. For what is done
in a dramatization, is to foreground and make sensibly graspable the shape
and character of a ‘presence’ a ‘something’ which, nonetheless, still remains
invisible — its presence as a unitary whole is portrayed, displayed, or shown
in one’s performance (just as Marcel Marceau ‘shows’ the existence of an
invisible wall in his hand movements as he struggles to find an opening in
it). If one is primordial enough (in one’s stance) and original enough (in
one’s words), then one can express the fleeting presence of new possibilities
merely glimpsed at in such a way that others cannot only glimpse them too,
but dwell on them long enough to make them items of public discussion and
attention. To do that, we have to describe them in memorable ways, in ways
that enables all of us to notice them too.
With this task in mind, let me end here with two relevant remarks. The first
is to do with our inital orientation to our tasks in philosophy:
<LINK "sho-r8">
"sho-r3">
"sho-r5">
… the difficulty — I might say — is not that of finding the solution but
rather that of recognizing as the solution something that looks as if it were
only a preliminary to it. … This is connected, I believe, with our wrongly
expecting an explanation, whereas the solution to the difficulty is a
description, if we give it the right place in our considerations. If we dwell
upon it, and do not try to get beyond it. (Z: No. 314).
Being able to stop the background flow, to look over what is before us, and
to see in it relational possibilities not seen before, is what is at stake here.
But the task is not to do this in general, for all time, but in this and that
particular circumstance: to see where one is now, and to see it afresh, with
wonder: “…the place I really have to get to is a place I must already be at
now. Anything that I might reach by climbing a ladder does not interest me”
(C&V: 7).
This relates directly to my own practical interest in Wittgenstein’s
methods. Arlene Katz and I (Katz and Shotter 1997, 1997; Shotter and Katz
1997; Shotter and Gustavsen 1999) have been engaged in outlining how a
group of practitioners — such as doctors, workers, managers, stakeholders in
regional development, etc. — can, while in fact still engaged in their
practices, draw each other’s attention to new facets of each other’s activities,
which, once noted in public space, can become a shareable resource by all.
Indeed, once noticed, being ‘struck by’ such facets can by ‘carried over’, so
to speak, from one to another context of the practice. And, just as Wittgen-
stein (1969) remarks, “not only rules, but also examples are needed for
establishing a practice. Our practice leaves loop-holes, and the practice has
to speak for itself” (OC: 139), so we find that talk of ‘striking events’ helps
in establishing a new practice. The new practice ‘tells’ us of its own basic
nature in how such examples strike us: they establish a basic way of seeing,
a form of perception, for use in making sense of all the other “objects” we
encounter in the sphere of the practice.
This kind of small scale development in our practices was suggested by
Wittgenstein thus:
Disquiet in philosophy might be said to arise from looking at philosophy
wrongly, seeing it wrong, namely as if it were divided into (infinite)
longitudinal strips instead of into (finite) cross strips This inversion of our
conception produces the greatest difficulty. So we try as it were to grasp
the unlimited strips and complain that it cannot be done piecemeal. To be
sure it cannot, if by a piece one means an infinite longitudinal strip. But it
<DEST "sho-r3">
"sho-r1">
"sho-r2">
<DEST "sho-n*">
may well be done, if one means a cross-strip. — But in that case we never
get to the end of our work! — Of course not, for it has no end. (We want
to replace wild conjectures and explanations by the quiet weighing of
linguistic facts.) (Z: No. 447)
Here we are back, as philosophers, to being co-practitioners with a group of
others, and to a set of methods that may be of help to them in elaborating,
refining, and sustaining their practice from where they already are, at any
one moment, within it. Again, as always, the task is to move from what is
done spontaneously, and unthinkingly, to what might be done willfully and
intellectually. It is the removal of Wittgenstein’s philosophy of beginnings
and beginnings from the academy and its re-situating out in the everyday
world, that is the truly revolutionary move I am advocating here.
Note
* Paper given at the American University, Washington DC, March 26th 2000, at a
Wittgenstein Conference in honor of Rom Harré.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trans. by Caryl Emerson.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. by Vern W. McGee. Austin,
Tx: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1993. Toward a Philosophy of the Act, with translation and notes by Vadim
Lianpov, ed. by M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Descartes, R. 1986. Meditations on First Philosophy: With selections from objections and replies.
Trans. by J. Cottingham, with an Introduction by B. Williams. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Katz, A. M. and Shotter, J. 1996. “Hearing the Patient’s Voice: Toward a social poetics in
diagnostic interviews”. Social Science and Medicine 46: 919–931.
<DEST "sho-r8">
"sho-r4">
"sho-r5">
"sho-r6">
"sho-r7">
</TARGET "sho">
Katz, A. M. and Shotter, J. 1997. “Resonances from within the Practice: Social Poetics in a
Mentorship Program”. Concepts and Transformations 2: 97–105.
Saussure, F. de. 1959/1966. Course in General Linguistics. Ed. by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shotter, J. 1980. “Action, Joint Action, and Intentionality”. In M. Brenner (ed), The Structure
of Action. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shotter, J. 1984. Social Accountability and Selfhood. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shotter, J. 1993a. Cultural Politics of Everyday Life: Social Constructionism, Rhetoric, and
Knowing of the Third Kind. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Shotter, J. 1993b. Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language. London: Sage.
Shotter, J. and Katz, A. M. 1997. “Articulating a Practice from within the Practice Itself:
establishing formative dialogues by the use of a ‘social poetics’”. Concepts and Transfor-
mation 2: 71–95.
Shotter, J. and Gustavsen, B. 1999. The Role of “Dialogue Conferences” in the Development of
“Learning Regions”: Doing “from within” our Lives Together What We Cannot Do Apart.
Stockholm, SE: Stockholm School of Economics.
Volosinov, V. N. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. by L. Matejka and
I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Volosinov, V. N. 1987. Freudianism: a Critical Sketch. Bloomington and Inianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language. Translation newly revised by Alex Kozulin.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell (PI).
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell (OC).
Wittgenstein, L. 1974. Philosophical Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell (PG).
Wittgenstein, L. 1980. Culture and Value with an introduction by G. H. von Wright, trans. by
P. Winch. Oxford: Blackwell (C&V).
Wittgenstein, L. 1980. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell
(RPP,I).
Wittgenstein, L. 1981. Zettel, (2nd. Ed.). Ed. by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright.
Oxford: Blackwell (Z).