7 Frame
G. Bateson, A theory of play and fantasy, 1955
http://sashabarab.com/syllabi/games_learning/bateson.pdf
Bateson's essay is translated into ITALIAN and it is included in this book:
http://www.ibs.it/code/9788845915352/bateson-gregory/verso-ecologia-della.html
A. Schutz, On Multiple Realities, 1945
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2102818
Check the ITALIAN translation of the article in this book:
http://www.cbt.biblioteche.provincia.tn.it/oseegenius/resource?uri=347195
Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis, Chapters 1-3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83646510/Erving-Goffman-Frame-Analysis-an-Essay-on-the-Organization-of-Experience-1974
The ITALIAN translation:
http://www.ibs.it/code/9788883582332/goffman-erving/frame-analysis-organizzazione.html
In the web there are a lot of resources on the Frame Analysis. See for instance:
http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/frameanalysis/index.html
The game design theory
RispondiEliminaThe introduction of the article was somehow abstract for understanding as the author tried to explain the concept of frame by the interactions of two monkeys, where they signal messages that distinguish between two similar acts such as playing and fighting. By introducing that animals can counter such an understanding, it’s easier to articulate human capacity in the concept of frame understanding, how perception and understanding of pre understood context lean to same result, but as the encounter of new signals or message maybe lead to confusion or wrong understanding. Later throughout the passage the author emphasis the idea that frames enable us to understand and decode certain activities, which were to mean nothing without psychological frame.
However, it was precisely interesting when the author perceived it in two kinds, one which is in a way simplifying the relation of frame as mathematical frame work where everything could be represented based on its size in dots or line, however the other kind represents the complexity of frame context for interaction through psychological frame analysis even when it’s unconscious.
Then the author follows by explaining different characteristics of psychological frame which are logical but separated into two elements as mean of being self explanatory. These two elements are exclusivity and inclusivity. Whereas when certain messages are illuminated other message can be included and vise versa.
Moreover, it was interesting to defined frame psychology as meta communicative process. Hence multiply communications might be originated simultaneously in the form of minor or more apparent signals to help the other person understand the message.
Conversely, this quotation paused me when the author said; “Wise men see outline that’s why they draw them”. Isn’t the optimum if we see outside of these outlines, or should we observe their existance but counteract to them. However, in that case won’t our perception play a major role which will push us in loop of pre defined frames?
Finally, this article shaded the light on using concept of psychological frame in psychotherapy especially in complex cases of paradoxes such as schizophrenia; however, it noted that this can’t function except with some realization even on unconsciousness level of the psychological frame, in order to understand metaphors behind some constant frames in the head of the patient. Not only but also, the author invite us to see the flexibility of altering of understanding the paradox of absorption as mean to build a advancing adopting evolution of communication.
A theory of play and fantasy – Gregory Bateson
RispondiEliminaBateson’s generalization: “ […] human verbal communication can operate and always does operate at many contrasting levels of abstraction. These range in two directions from the seemingly simple denotative level […]”. (Bateson 315)
The first level refers to METALINGUISTIC (importance of language), the second one is called METACOMMUNICATIVE (importance of the relationship between the speakers). The most part of both two levels of messages remain implicit.
In his study Bateson observes the behavior of monkeys that lives at the Fleishhacker Zoo in San Francisco. His purpose is to discover if animals recognize signals as a way to communicate. He describes: “I saw two young monkeys playing, i. e., engaged in an interactive sequence of which the unit actions signals were similar to but not the same as those of combat”. (Bateson 316)
So Bateson observes that what might seem a combat between monkeys, actually shows the message “This is play”. In this case, the meaning of “Play” action express the action, but not what the action itself denotes. (So the message does not consist of what it denotes). Also Bateson notice that the actions of “Play” is linked with another action of “Not Play” and the message of “This is play” creates a paradoxical frame. Frames performs two purpose: one side they represent what we understand in a specific situation, on the other side they represent a mutual understanding of common expectations within the situation. Frame works are culturally specific, but our behavior should follow according to the specific frame of the situation. Bateson see that psychological frame surrounding a class of action and he distinguish some forms of psychological frame: exclusive, inclusive, related to premises. The first excluding some things and includes others, the second including some things and excludes others, the last one understand things in the frame in a different way from the others. How frames work? According to Bateson frame decides what is relevant to keep and what can be excluded and guide us in our behavior to know what is important and what is not.
Coming back to the observation of Bateson, he wanted to check the ability of the animals to use meta-communication. His study shows that the monkeys were not able to interpret the situation. In the case of humans it is possible to see that, as a result of a stimulus, the situation is interpreted and it is followed by a response. This is not the case for animals which respond only to the stimulus, and cannot decipher what is happening.
Gregory Bateson: A theory of play and fantasy
RispondiEliminaI would like to highlight one aspect of the paper which i found interesting.
The aspect which gripped my imagination is the so-called „map-territory” relation. „The fact that a message, of whatever kind, does not consist of those objects which it denotes.” Following this logic the word map does not consist all of the territories which it denotes. Another picturesque example by the author was the case of the word cat which obviously cannot meow and scratch us. The above mentioned examples are unequivocal for us, but are they that obvious for everybody?
Through the process of socialization and education we learn how to attach pictures to words, furthermore we learn what a particular word denotes. In the case of small children where the development of the personality are in the initial stage, we can discover some interesting characters regarding the evolution of words. For instance: when they are not familiar yet with the meaning of the word dog, they just attach the vau-vau signal to the picture of the dog. In this particular example the word „dog” is meaningless according to the children, contrary to vau-vau which is obviously meaningful.
The following fictional situation (question) come to my mind, while i was reading the paragraph. What would happen in the case if a 3-4 years old child were bitten by a dog, while someone would play the word „dog” by a cd-player. In this case it might be possible that the child after hearing the word dog again, would terrified because of the unconscious link between the bite and the dog.
The reality and the sense at the field of the interpretation: The frame`s analysis by Goffman.
RispondiEliminaThis week, the most important study of the social communication process, being of the idea of the connection then every event and how is received in our mind. For Goffman, this bound is given in the field of articulate our experience and what we face in everyday.
About the experience, Goffman explain that makes in front of our eyes, is immediately recognized the idea of marks: experiences, sensations, memories, that we put in on the real event, and this is the base for the individual makes one or another answer.
In fact, Goffman explains that exist two different types of mark: the first one is called primary, that is also divided in two: natural, - basic stage, that allows reflect the common sense, given for the sum of the knowledge and rules of our society i.e. the existence of the mediation of time – or social, when reflect in the mark, all our expectations, fears, dreams and so on, and the real event is measure for our social validations.
The second types is called secondary, and is a more complex process when the real event, that given a sense, is transcript in another way, thanks to the conventions that Goffman call “key”, i.e. the greeting in the street with someone and the questions about how are the receptor, no implies necessary, the real interest for the details about your life.
The most important reflection of this unit, is in fact, that all our confrontations with the real world, are instantly mediated by the participation like a social individual, includes all that thinking are unique or that in decides not participate, because, the difference and the omission, explain the connection with other ideas that the human being can be change or can be out. In consequence, all our perceptions of the real world are interrelated, and for that, one significant example of this, is the power of the mass media in the actual society.
For a reflection about this, I suggest this trailer about an American movie, that reflect the impact of the fourth power about the perception of something:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNo0BicRM8k
Thoughts on G. Bateson’s “A theory of play and fantasy”
RispondiEliminaThe abstraction of human communication
Human communication operates in different levels of abstraction (Bateson 1955). No wonder, it is not uncommon that we misinterpret the message of the persons we communicate to.
He said that human communication has both explicit and implicit messages. I am more drawn to the metacommunicative implicit underpinnings of a piece of communication. I find it similar with the concept of discourse functions or what the discourse is trying to do (what kind of effect does it want for the hearer to do). In other words, what we are communicating are ‘just signals’. This is interesting since our language is so complex. When we hear stories of women who experienced abuse, the communication can be a signal for a request for empathy. The woman does not need to say, “Please be compassionate with my situation.”
In reading newspapers, we should not consider all the text in the paper as ‘direct object indications’ of the events, but signals from writers who have their own biases, motivations, ideological backgrounds.
Play and dramatization show differentiation between map and territory
To support this idea of abstraction encompassing people’s communication, an experiment was conducted. Animals in a zoo was studied to discover if non-human mammals are aware that the signs they are communicating with the other animals are only signals. The author observed that two monkeys are able to play.
Play denotes other actions of ‘not play.’ When we were young, when we wrestle with our playmates, we both know that we are only playing and not real fighting. This is the same with dramatization or a film. A play or a movie give signals that are not true or not meant. In here, we are able to differentiate the map from the territory, or our wrestling does not necessarily denote what wrestling would denote.