There is a term in linguistics called clusivity, and according to Wikipedia it 'is a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person pronouns and verbal morphology.' This means that there are languages which have two words for what we mean in English by we. The first we (inclusive we), let's call it we1, would be used in the situation 'Me talking to you and when I say we I am referring to you as part of the group of people that make up we.' Basically, you are one of us. The other we (exclusive we), we2, refers to 'Me talking to you and when I say we I am referring to you as an outsider to the group of people I refer to as we.' You are not one of us.
You can find languages with such a feature in the Austronesian language family and in the Australian Aboriginal languages, among others. Examples of national languages with clusivity are Tok Pisin (one national language of Papua New Guinea, together with English and two others) and Tagalog (one national language of the Philippines, together with English.) No language in Europe shows clusivity.
One could argue for a long time about whether a distinctive linguistic feature in a language exists (is used) because its speakers are consciously aware of that distinction and regard it as correct/necessary/accurate to use it or, rather, that the linguistic feature itself is what makes the speaker aware of the distinction when they use it (on some unconscious level at least).
This is very connected to the principle of 'linguistic relativity', which holds that 'the structure of a language affects the ways in which its speakers are able to conceptualize their world.' This is also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and, in one of his attempts to prove it, Whorf describes an experience he had one day in his job as a chemical fire inspector for an insurance company: 'On inspecting a chemical plant he once observed that the plant had two storage rooms for gasoline barrels, one for the full barrels and one for the empty ones. He further noticed that while no employees smoked cigarettes in the room for full barrels no-one minded smoking in the room with empty barrels, although this was potentially much more dangerous due to the highly flammable vapours that still existed in the barrels. He concluded that the use of the word empty in connection to the barrels had led the workers to unconsciously regarding them as harmless, although consciously they were probably aware of the risk of explosion from the vapours.' I should state that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not unanimously accepted, as there are also linguistic objections to it.
Still, the point Whorf tried to put across is that, even if you are consciously aware of certain features of the situation you are talking about, language may alter your understanding of it on levels you may not be totally aware of. And this, applied to the case of clusivity, would mean that those languages showing this feature would have no ambiguity about whether you are part of we on any level of awareness. That is because clusivity is consciously understood, but it doesn't blur its understanding on the subtler linguistic level, as it coincides with what is understood consciously (that subtler linguistic level being the one that blurred the chemical plant employees' conception of 'empty' and 'full' barrels). One could then argue about whether the absence of this clusivity in English actually has any effect. After all, how could one make a mistake on any subtler level of consciousness about whether the addressee in a conversation, you, is included when the addresser uses the word we. If someone is an outsider, s/he is an outsider and that's it, right? Maybe or maybe not; but the point is that we've seen language can have an effect on that level.
I am more interested in what I see as another type of clusivity, which is what I label linguistic cooperativeness. This is, as far as I am aware of, totally made-up. I have not come across anything that slightly resembles it and something tells me it is unlikely to exist because it involves a dependence on future events for something as basic as a personal pronoun. (You could argue that English shows such dependence on future events in words that have the suffix '-to-be', as in father-to-be and mother-to-be, but this is a very particular case with not many examples. We are talking about something as frequent as personal pronouns, like we.)
Linguistic cooperativeness would establish a difference on whether the speaker, I, is included in the group when they are saying we. Cooperative we, let's call it wec, would mean 'I include myself in the group I am referring to as we.' Basically, I am part of we. Uncooperative we, weuc, would mean 'I don't include myself in the group I am referring to as we.' I am not part of we. In effect this would be no different from the plural you.
In this case, one could interpret Whorf's hypothesis to mean that speakers of a hypothetical language that had such feature (linguistic cooperativeness) would have no misconception about whether the speaker, I, is included when one uses the word we. They would not use we, when they mean you. Does this mean that speakers of English may not be aware of the fact that sometimes when they say we, on some level of awareness they are not really including themselves in that group? Consciously they mean wec, but on a deeper level they may well be thinking (or whatever you do on that level) weuc.
It is at least a possibility, and I am sure that one could gather a lot of valuable research material from observing the dialectics used at a Sanford meeting, whether members' or C.O.M.. It is interesting to pay attention, whenever we is uttered at one of these meetings, to whether the speaker is including her or himself in the group. I don't mean this on a conscious level. We are obviously including ourselves in we, as that is what we means: me and others; but could our deeper conception of we be open to ambiguity and not include ourselves when we say we? Could I say we and mean others and not me? I think I can.
I'm of course not suggesting we start making a distinction between the two wes.
Well, actually, why not? Just imagine the situation with someone saying: 'Hey guys I think we should do this!' while blatantly winking to everyone to signal that what s/he really means is 'Hey guys I got this idea and I think you should do it, because I have no time/can't be bothered - but hey! I am inspired enough to give the idea and think other people should, like me, appreciate how brilliant my idea is and do something about it.'
I now hope you think I am kidding, because I am. But I think that on a deeper level there's some truth in that when people say we, they just don't include themselves. Yet they feel good about it because it looks like giving the idea is the main contribution to something happening (if it ever happens). I'm afraid I disagree. Giving the idea is close to nothing, in fact it is nothing if nothing happens after that. We've all heard the world is full of 'talented' people; but who makes it? Who manages to fulfil that talent? Those who put in the effort and have the persistence and determination to make it. Any person who has 'made' it (I'm not getting into the definition of success here; I hope our everyday notion of it suffices for the sake of this argument) will tell you that that's what really matters. Talent is important but, on its own, it is worthless.
Of course anybody at some point genuinely could be too busy to carry out whatever s/he may have thought of - fair enough. But it would be nice if that was stated when suggesting something: 'Guys, I think we could do this, but I honestly have no time for it.' or, to be more accurate: 'Guys, I think someone else could do this because I cannot do it, but I would if I could.'
I am definitely not suggesting that this type of behaviour is commonplace in meetings or in general conversations about communal living, but I am trying to raise awareness of a phenomenon that I think can be a double-edged sword. This behaviour gives the impression that a lot of things are going to (meant to) happen, but nothing develops from the idea because, whenever anyone said we, they actually meant weuc (not themselves), and those he's addressing think mostly that s/he'll do it, after all, it's her/his idea. Ultimately this can disappoint those who can't see the inner workings of this phenomenon, because the only thing one can see happening is that nothing is happening.
So my suggestion is: next time you say we in a coop meeting, blog, wiggio or whatever, think about who you really mean. Do you include yourself in that group? Or do you say we just to make yourself feel like you are participating in something because, in truth, you are not really gonna do a thing about it, apart from giving the idea? Just a thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
By Guillermo
Monday, 25 June 2012
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Living In The Future: About Sanford Video
Specially for the solstice, here's a little midnight video about Sanford housing cooperative by Living in the Future. Are we living in the future?
We are now!
We are now!
Monday, 18 June 2012
Sanford Flora and Fauna: Hawthorn
Crataegus Species, otherwise known as the Ladies’ Meat, Cheese and Bread Tree and Common Hawthorn is a plant which is native to Europe, northwest Africa and central Asia.
It is a thorny shrub with small, dark green deeply lobed leaves. It usually bears delicate white flowers in the spring (usually May) and later in the year single-seeded, crimson berries, botanically known as pomes - fruits which are produced by flowering plants and which come from the Rosaceae family (apples are an example of pomes).
In gardening and agriculture, hawthorns have been widely used in hedges, as their close branches and thorns make them effective livestock barriers. They provide food and shelter for many species of birds, animals and nectar-feeding insects.
The leaves, flowers and berries have medicinal uses, and studies have shown that they can be beneficial to cardiac disorders, such as irregular heartbeat and even heart failure. Hawthorn has been used to treat heart ailments from as far back as the 1st century. In Celtic Folklore, it was once said to heal the broken heart.
In fact, the tree is bound up with religious connotations and folkloric tales. To name a few, it has been regarded as the emblem of hope by the ancient Greeks. The supposition that Jesus wore a crown of hawthorn is linked to the popular idea that it is bad luck to uproot one, and also gave rise to the superstition among the French peasantry that the tree would utter cries and groans on Good Friday. In Gaelic folklore, the tree is associated with fairies and ‘marks the entrance to the otherworld’, and it is considered unlucky to cut the tree at any time other than when in bloom. If you see strips of cloth tied to a hawthorn, it is being used for a healing ritual. In Croatian and Serbian folklore, it is said that stakes to kill vampires must only be made from hawthorn wood.
You can find these mystical bushes at the back of our houses!
By Tara-pedia (8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorn
Monday, 11 June 2012
Uncle San goes Shopping
I've been fascinated by the way we do our food shopping for a while now. For the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, that means supermarkets. I know that I've spent a horrifying percentage of my life traipsing in and out of supermarkets, never questioning a few basic assumptions:
1. Supermarkets are cheaper.
2. Supermarkets are more convenient.
3. Supermarkets are nice places to shop, comforting even.
But all that's changed. I haven't been to a supermarket for three months. Why? Because I looked at the facts and discovered that all my assumptions were wrong.
1. Supermarkets are not cheaper.
| Cheaper! |
To test my assumptions, I went to four different local shopping areas:
- The enormous Sainsbury's at New Cross Gate.
- The House Wives Cash and Carry, on Deptford High Street. House Wives doesn't do fresh fruit and vegetables, so I had to supplement them with a stall right outside.
- The local shops on the estate opposite Sanford: one mini-mart and one greengrocer.
- Kismet on New Cross road, near New Cross station.
| Click on image to see the shopping list details. |
So you can see that Sainsbury's wins on price - but only if we buy cheapo own brand stuff and even then only just. I decided that I might as well support small businesses and go to Deptford.
Also, this is a somewhat artificial comparison. There are loads of shops on Deptford High Street, not just House Wives. But what have you got around Sainsbury's? A wasteland. In Deptford, you have the option of shopping around. You don't have that option if you go to Sainsbury's. It is economic logic that Deptford High Street should be cheaper.
I didn't shop around like this because I also wanted to compare the shops for convenience. I don't always have time to go into three or four shops. However, one Deptford shop does deserve a special mention: Robert Walker. They have 100g bars of dark Swiss chocolate for 50p, they have packs of yummy goat's cheese for 50p, biscuits for 60p, tinned mackerel (if that's your thing...) for 50p. Go and check it out if you haven't already been. It's on the right hand side as you walk down towards New Cross Road. And see if you can spot Sanford faces in the window...
2. Supermarkets are not more convenient.
| More convenient! |
But it's not all about price. Sometimes you really need something to eat RIGHT NOW. And we all know supermarkets are super fast and convenient, don't we? Don't we?
Just to check, I did some research on opening hours, the time it takes to walk to the shop and how long I have to wait at the checkout.
Sainsbury's
8.00 - 22.00pm Monday to Saturday. 11.00 - 17.00 on Sunday.12 minutes walking time.
1 or 2 people ahead at every checkout with at least 10 items each. Estimated waiting time: 4-5 minutes.
House Wives
8.30 - 20.00 Monday to Saturday. 10.00 - 18.00 on Sunday.14 minutes walking time.
No queue, no wait.
Local estate shops
9.30 - 18.00 Monday to Saturday. Close 14.00 or 16.00 on Sunday.4 minutes walking time.
No queue, no wait.
Kismet
Close 23.00 everyday.10 minutes walking time.
No queue, no wait.
Nothing beats local for convenience. I didn't have to queue in any of the Sainsbury's alternatives and Kismet beats Sainsbury's for opening hours. Naturally, the estate shops are closest. Just in case you don't know where the local estate shops are, here's a map:
| X marks the spot: local shops are super close to Sanford. |
And remember that walking and queueing really does make a difference. You might think the supermarket is convenient because you're just passing, but if you have to queue for ten minutes, is it really worth it?
3. Supermarkets are not even remotely nice places to shop.
| Sainsbury's, New Cross Gate. A delightful day out. |
Okay, so this one is anecdotal. But, having not been into a supermarket for three months, when I went into our local Sainsbury's to do the research for this piece, I was struck by how unwell it made me feel. By unwell, I mean physically sick, like I was suffering from agoraphobia. I had to stop and close my eyes every few minutes for a bit of a rest. If that sounds like a fluffy over-reaction, then you try it.
From the second I walked in the door, I was assaulted by bright lights and garish displays. Everywhere I looked I was bombarded with advertising and special offer promotions. I particularly liked the offer on Twix multi-packs. There were not one, but two offers: one 16 pack cut in price to £2 or two for £2 on 9 packs. Who wants to work that out?
The supermarket was busy, even though it was the middle of a Tuesday afternoon and I know that's not even close to being peak time. After a couple of minutes of dodging trolleys and stressed-out shoppers, I was starting to feel dizzy and, by the end of the trip, I was exhausted from all the walking. That place is HUGE. If you like doing your shopping in a warehouse, then be my guest. I prefer things on a more human scale.
House Wives in Deptford is a big shop, no doubt, but it pales into comparison with Sainsbury's. House Wives has pretty much every kind of food stuff you could desire in a decent range of choice, aside from fresh fruit and vegetables. Sainsbury's, on the other hand, has more than 30 aisles and can boast 138 different varieties of soup on their shelves. Yes: I counted them.
The sheer size of Sainsbury's and the sheer effort involved in shopping there encourages me to shop big. I want to buy a lot of everything while I'm there, so I don't have to do it again soon. But, by shopping at the local estate, I can nip out while the tea's brewing. At Sainsbury's, I can now be served by a noisy machine instead of a low-paid till operator. House Wives is run by a family who will discuss my choice of lip salve with me.
| Family friendly. |
I haven't even mentioned the fact that the vast supply chains of our supermarkets are crushing competition and squeezing out suppliers, not only in this country, but all over the world. I don't have to. Ignoring supermarkets doesn't have to be a point of principle; it is a logical decision based on economics, convenience and humanity.
Saturday, 9 June 2012
Monday, 4 June 2012
The Making of the House Zero Garden
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)