Yes, Gary, perhaps I did not state it clearly enough. Without the capacity
to be the other at the same time as oneself, key to Mead's definition of
the significant symbol and to empathy, nothing will be imparted. With that
capacity, the scene can impart something new to the witness, an
identification of the family of Jesus as refugees with contemporary
refugees today. One can experience "the other" as oneself, feel what that
situation is, and presumably, have compassion for it.
And yes, Gary, evangelical Christian fundamentalists in the US, such
as the 80% of those in Alabama who voted for an accused child molester
recently, disregarding the accusations and even often denigrating the
accusers because he represents their political ideology, like all
fundamentalists perhaps, have retreated into a bubble wherein the other is
not simply denied, but attacked. Here callousedness replaces empathy, and
"the other" is scapegoated. Mead's "ability to be the other at same time
that he is himself" is reversed: the ability to not be the other at the
same time that he is himself becomes the recipe for the loss of the
capacity for self-criticism.
Gene H
On Dec 28, 2017 1:06 PM, "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eugene, Peter, list,
>
> I very much like your analysis, Gene. You wrote:
>
> The implication here is that the experience of the nativity scene, with
> refugees representing today as echoing Jesus as a refugee, imparts in the
> witness an ability to empathize with "the other."
>
> However, I think that rather than 'imparting' "an ability to empathize
> with 'the other' " (although it may do that in some, perhaps few,
> individuals) that one needs already to possess that 'ability' to appreciate
> the analogy and respond to it. In the USA at least it would appear that
> many Christians, esp. of the evangelical fundamentalist stripe, have lost
> it (or at least suppress it).
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *718 482-5690 <%28718%29%20482-5690>*
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eugene Halton <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Peter,
>> Peirce described the way in which symbols can grow over time. And
>> clearly one of the meanings of the symbol of the nativity is the family.
>> Feuerbach called attention to how the holy family symbol is a
>> representation of the earthly family. Marx took it further by claiming that
>> the holy family symbol of the earthly family is also a projection of the
>> bourgeois family in his time.
>> A year ago Pope Francis adapted the symbol to the refugee situation
>> by including a Maltese fishing boat in the nativity scene at the Vatican, a
>> reference to refugees arriving by boat.
>> Perhaps George Herbert Mead can have more to say on this than
>> Peirce, in Mead's description of what he termed "the significant symbol."
>> In Mead's significant symbol the other is included reflectively in the
>> meaning of the symbol:
>> "it is through the ability to be the other at same time that he is
>> himself that the symbol becomes significant."
>> (From "A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol").
>> The implication here is that the experience of the nativity scene,
>> with refugees representing today as echoing Jesus as a refugee, imparts in
>> the witness an ability to empathize with "the other."
>> Gene H
>>
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2017 9:34 AM, "Skagestad, Peter" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Listers,
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a somewhat unusual question. My sister is writing an Art History
>>> thesis on nativity scenes and their contemporary relevance. An example is
>>> one at a street mission in Trondheim, Norway, depicting the Holy Family as
>>> present-day refugees from the Middle East. Now the question is what, if
>>> anything, might semiotics have to say about such depiction? The answer may
>>> be obvious, but it escapes me, at least for the moment. Any suggestions?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe
>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce
>> -l/peirce-l.htm .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
