Advanced

En essä om estetisk efterrättelse.

Börrefors, Johanna LU (2007) In Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, Lund University 25.
Abstract (Swedish)
Popular Abstract in Swedish

Meads centrala påstående var att medvetandet uppstår mellan människor. Det individuella subjektet framträder därmed som en effekt. Jag har lyft fram det faktum att Miget ? agenten snarare än subjektet ? föregår och ingår i den sociala interaktionen. I och med det föregår Miget subjekt/objekt distinktionen vilken blir relevant först när interaktionen är en realitet. Den biologiska organismen ? kroppen (i interaktion) föregår alltså medvetandet. Miget som kropp och organism betonas i avhandlingen för att tydliggöra den skillnad som föreligger mellan Mig och Jag. Jaget som bild och reflektion är, som vi har sett, något annat än det faktiska agerandet. Sören Kierkegaards skillnad mellan lidelse (det... (More)
Popular Abstract in Swedish

Meads centrala påstående var att medvetandet uppstår mellan människor. Det individuella subjektet framträder därmed som en effekt. Jag har lyft fram det faktum att Miget ? agenten snarare än subjektet ? föregår och ingår i den sociala interaktionen. I och med det föregår Miget subjekt/objekt distinktionen vilken blir relevant först när interaktionen är en realitet. Den biologiska organismen ? kroppen (i interaktion) föregår alltså medvetandet. Miget som kropp och organism betonas i avhandlingen för att tydliggöra den skillnad som föreligger mellan Mig och Jag. Jaget som bild och reflektion är, som vi har sett, något annat än det faktiska agerandet. Sören Kierkegaards skillnad mellan lidelse (det genuina engagemanget) och reflektion (det beräknande och överlagda) ? där lidelsen förutsatte det djupaste deltagande och reflektionen distans ? har fungerat som en parallell. Jaget är den envisa försanthållaren av den estetiska efterrättelsen, det lidelsefulla deltagandets absoluta motpol, i en mening tomt. Detta behov av att identifiera sig själv som något kan ses som ett sätt att ? med formen som utgångspunkt ? sträcka sig efter gemenskap men också som ett sätt att hålla livet ? innehållet ? på avstånd. Den metaforblinde estetikern uppfattar eller erkänner inte representationen som en representation, att Jaget är det representerade Självet och inte Självet. Estetisk efterrättelse utgår från klyftan ? mellan Miget och Jaget ? i den meningen att skillnaden mellan objektet och bilden av det (eftersträvansvärda) ignoreras. Att legitimera en gestaltning är alltså inte detsamma som att verifiera ett sakläge. Jean-Paul Sartre nämndes som exempel. Som barn tycks han ha likställt sig fullt ut med en generaliserad andre. Sartre var enbart Jag, spegelbilden av andras tankar om honom. Hur vida det var omgivningen, situationerna eller tingen som fordrade estetisk efterrättelse av Sartre är oklart ? klart är att det var svårt för honom att inte tillmötesgå kraven eftersom hans eget värde var underordnat dem. Operativsystemet GNU/Linux har fungerat ? som parallell: operativsystemet GNU/Linux kontra tecknet GNU/Linux.



Jag har lyft fram estetisk efterrättelse som en infallsvinkel på normer. Med socialpsykologins perspektiv har jag ringat in problematiken. Symbolmiljön ? med sitt språk- och skådespel ? har fungerat som en skärningspunkt mellan individ och samhälle, detta föränderliga ?fokus? med sin ?individuella? motsvarighet i förhållandet mellan Jaget ? som en generaliserad andre ? och Miget ? existensen.



En symbolmiljö består av gemensamma nämnare vari samma sociala verklighet råder. Värdeomdömen framstår där som objektiva. Att tillägna sig en symbolmiljö ? ett förhållningssätt ? är ungefär detsamma som att navigera efter ett slags yttre ?kompass?. Den yttre kompassen anger hur vi bör vara, bete oss, vad vi bör leta efter och hur vi bör betrakta det vi ser. Också ramnormsystemet får sin betydelse härigenom.



Antingen överensstämmer andra genom sina ting och gester med ens egen symbolmiljö eller också inte. Människan kan rent av sägas stå ? och falla ? med de associationer hon ger upphov till hos mottagaren. Estetisk efterrättelse är form framför innehåll, en bild uppbyggd av symboler i den meningen att man inte vill associeras med något som man inte också kan identifiera sig med. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis is about aesthetic observance. By these terms I intend to give an account of a social phenomenon considered an angle of approach on the understanding of norms. I narrow down the problems with the perspective from social psychology.



The central claim by George Herbert Mead was that mind arises from human interaction. The individual subject by this means appears as an effect. I whish to emphasize the fact that the ?Me? (in my terminology, not Mead's ? the ?Me? as well as the ?I? being aspects of the Self) ? the agent not the subject ? precedes as well as is an integral part of the social interaction. With this the ?Me? precedes the distinction between subject and object which, in turn, become relevant only when... (More)
This thesis is about aesthetic observance. By these terms I intend to give an account of a social phenomenon considered an angle of approach on the understanding of norms. I narrow down the problems with the perspective from social psychology.



The central claim by George Herbert Mead was that mind arises from human interaction. The individual subject by this means appears as an effect. I whish to emphasize the fact that the ?Me? (in my terminology, not Mead's ? the ?Me? as well as the ?I? being aspects of the Self) ? the agent not the subject ? precedes as well as is an integral part of the social interaction. With this the ?Me? precedes the distinction between subject and object which, in turn, become relevant only when the interaction already is a fact. The biological organism ? the body (in interaction) thus precedes mind. The ?Me? as body and organism is emphasized in the dissertation to elucidate the difference between the ?Me? and the ?I?. The ?I? as representation and reflection is something quite different from the executed actions. The distinction made by Sören Kierkegaard between passion (the genuine devotion) and reflection (calculated and intentional) ? where passion required the deepest sympathy and r eflection required distance ? functions as a parallel. The ?I? is the unyielding crusader truthful to aesthetic observance, the absolute antithesis of the fervent sympathy, in some sense empty. This need for identifying oneself as something can be seen as a way to ? with the form as a point of departure ? reach out for community; but also as a way to keep life ? the content ? at a distance. While the aesthetician being blind for metaphors, he doesn?t recognize or acknowledge the representation as representation; that the ?I? is the represented Self and not the Self. Aesthetic observance starts from the gap ? between the ?I? and the ?Me? ? in the sense that the difference between the object and the representation of it (the desirable) is ignored. To justify a certain formation of a fact is thus not equivalent to verify an actual fact. Jean-Paul Sartre is mentioned as an example. As a child he seems to completely have equated himself with the generalized other. Sartre was exclu sively his ?I?, the mirror representation of the others? opinion of him. Whether it was the social surrounds, situations or things that demanded aesthetic observance from him remains unclear ? clear seems on the other hand the fact that it was hard for him not to oblige as his own worth was subordinate. The case of the operating system GNU/Linux is used as an analogy to this: the operating system GNU/Linux versus the sign GNU/Linux. The symbol milieu ? with it's language game and acting ? functions as a point of intersection between individual and society, this ever-changing ?focus? with the individual counterpart in the relation between the ?I? ? like a generalized other ? and the ?Me? ? the existing character.



A symbol milieu consists of common denominators wherein the same social reality prevails. Subjective opinions appear objective. To acquire or assimilate a symbol milieu ? an attitude ? is about the same thing as navigating by aid of an external ?compass?. The external compass tells us how we should be and behave, what we should look for and how we ought to judge what we see. Even the structural norm system gets its meaning by these means. Either others are in accordance, through things and gestures, with one's own symbol milieu or they are not. Man actually could be said to depend on the associations she gives rise to in the recipient. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
supervisor
opponent
  • Prof. Petersen, Hanne, Juridisk fakultet, Köpenhamns universitet.
organization
publishing date
type
Thesis
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Sociology, Torgny T. Segerstedt, George Herbert Mead, GNU/Linux, Aesthetics, Norms, Sociology of Law, Social Psychology, Sociologi
in
Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, Lund University
volume
25
pages
231 pages
publisher
Sociology of Law, Lund University
defense location
sal 206, Universitetshuset, Universitetsplatsen.
defense date
2007-05-04 14:15
ISSN
1403-7246
ISBN
91-7267-235-8
language
Swedish
LU publication?
yes
id
b7e789be-2c39-4e46-9b33-beab43141aad (old id 27115)
date added to LUP
2007-06-05 09:47:09
date last changed
2016-09-19 08:44:55
@phdthesis{b7e789be-2c39-4e46-9b33-beab43141aad,
  abstract     = {This thesis is about aesthetic observance. By these terms I intend to give an account of a social phenomenon considered an angle of approach on the understanding of norms. I narrow down the problems with the perspective from social psychology.<br/><br>
<br/><br>
The central claim by George Herbert Mead was that mind arises from human interaction. The individual subject by this means appears as an effect. I whish to emphasize the fact that the ?Me? (in my terminology, not Mead's ? the ?Me? as well as the ?I? being aspects of the Self) ? the agent not the subject ? precedes as well as is an integral part of the social interaction. With this the ?Me? precedes the distinction between subject and object which, in turn, become relevant only when the interaction already is a fact. The biological organism ? the body (in interaction) thus precedes mind. The ?Me? as body and organism is emphasized in the dissertation to elucidate the difference between the ?Me? and the ?I?. The ?I? as representation and reflection is something quite different from the executed actions. The distinction made by Sören Kierkegaard between passion (the genuine devotion) and reflection (calculated and intentional) ? where passion required the deepest sympathy and r eflection required distance ? functions as a parallel. The ?I? is the unyielding crusader truthful to aesthetic observance, the absolute antithesis of the fervent sympathy, in some sense empty. This need for identifying oneself as something can be seen as a way to ? with the form as a point of departure ? reach out for community; but also as a way to keep life ? the content ? at a distance. While the aesthetician being blind for metaphors, he doesn?t recognize or acknowledge the representation as representation; that the ?I? is the represented Self and not the Self. Aesthetic observance starts from the gap ? between the ?I? and the ?Me? ? in the sense that the difference between the object and the representation of it (the desirable) is ignored. To justify a certain formation of a fact is thus not equivalent to verify an actual fact. Jean-Paul Sartre is mentioned as an example. As a child he seems to completely have equated himself with the generalized other. Sartre was exclu sively his ?I?, the mirror representation of the others? opinion of him. Whether it was the social surrounds, situations or things that demanded aesthetic observance from him remains unclear ? clear seems on the other hand the fact that it was hard for him not to oblige as his own worth was subordinate. The case of the operating system GNU/Linux is used as an analogy to this: the operating system GNU/Linux versus the sign GNU/Linux. The symbol milieu ? with it's language game and acting ? functions as a point of intersection between individual and society, this ever-changing ?focus? with the individual counterpart in the relation between the ?I? ? like a generalized other ? and the ?Me? ? the existing character.<br/><br>
<br/><br>
A symbol milieu consists of common denominators wherein the same social reality prevails. Subjective opinions appear objective. To acquire or assimilate a symbol milieu ? an attitude ? is about the same thing as navigating by aid of an external ?compass?. The external compass tells us how we should be and behave, what we should look for and how we ought to judge what we see. Even the structural norm system gets its meaning by these means. Either others are in accordance, through things and gestures, with one's own symbol milieu or they are not. Man actually could be said to depend on the associations she gives rise to in the recipient.},
  author       = {Börrefors, Johanna},
  isbn         = {91-7267-235-8},
  issn         = {1403-7246},
  keyword      = {Sociology,Torgny T. Segerstedt,George Herbert Mead,GNU/Linux,Aesthetics,Norms,Sociology of Law,Social Psychology,Sociologi},
  language     = {swe},
  pages        = {231},
  publisher    = {Sociology of Law, Lund University},
  school       = {Lund University},
  series       = {Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, Lund University},
  title        = {En essä om estetisk efterrättelse.},
  volume       = {25},
  year         = {2007},
}