tr-t, L/ FORMS OF PRESENTATION: ie A qort"oiten ns ._v . .. _ ..... Asnect .. .c'L or of )octa. l )er...,.... Fni stemn.l ,.-,,......,.. Social Science 'hrr .Tnhqn Ca I frrnc ^ and rnd_icators ^^^'r --^^^^^^^ UU4ID I IVVgDDED i f'- I ' Tnef n F Dorrol nnmont P-n iani verJF-r!v..v vJvvut ' ' universitaire d.'6tudes du d6veloppement, Geneva.
-1 1. Introduction There seem to be two ways of approaching the problem of forms in general prcsentation of science and, the soci-al- scj-ences OI +L^- in ^r ^L^rr ^' n:r,ticrrl:r: dotrnAT,. one of them som.'urh:i. uaL . ulls uf uttulrt Dll4af,uw ultg u L ulLulll JUlLtuwrr@ vlwwla! v uyy}JEL . t ^nA The shallow approach woufd take as a point of d.epartlrre a postu- of scientific lated need for a broad-er d.iffusion find-ings. It is have to reach"the peoplerr, that as they usually assumed that they lhcrr onl rr A. narrow ^-+^.r tnr:eh circle of neonl e a I rea.dw @ ifarrvw uf!Uf ArC UgU UfIYJ UUqvll UIffJ s Uf yuv}J re !rYDYil particu-tar trained. the same way, reinforcing their ways of tffha nrocq...1.e zl yurnnT nn rrsrrrl l rr nnrqgg I OOking a.t the in thiS difegti lvvlllrJbauqu4alrJ frorn three different corners of society: from the researchers them- selves who want to reach more people, possibly in "",*" -" ""nvi-nce perspective on the world is; then of how correct theirtrscj-entific" frnmnonn.lor.rhnhqlraq|oalinc.'l-hai]:herr:rom.i !IUllr UYUUlY WllU lrav e o !!urrra< llt UU U U]] DUlllg- -LLrr-f -u tr +1...i-- --.i +^ r-^ -'^ ''^'.'r,r'r-.'r-^ d,af.c.-'i n'orned: and middle- from Ulrf,Ir6 @IlU W U4!U f INC UV Uc u}J Uv ua Us rl Ir U! llrsu t , *L^a^^'r-,^^ r.^+..^^- +l^^ -i.n men who nosi tion and neonl e -^^^--^1..oTq pvr! urvrL UtfYIILDUMD Ug UWggff LlIg IYDCa!UllLru affu pvv_vf u r g=r""rf, viewing themselves as translators of a d.ifficult idion, ha.ve one -leg in n2mr'l- r"l-r-- oi thor ^^-^Lr ^ 1I' bel iev'i ng tha.t thew r-* rub fil vf ullsl U@llII, r 4I1J VOIr@uJs U urruJ t the scientific d-iscourse and at the same time knowing und-erstanding reed to know and how they can best get to know it. what people However laudable many aspects ol this approach would be, there First, one senses a power are certain rather serious shortcomings. motive: a small group in the el-ite in contemporary societies, scien- in particular, tists in general and social scientists who want to nn the rninnc nf -F'rra nnnrrlation imnrint at-l ar.c"e their world VieWs - jud.gements and theorems and theories, with implicit vafue with cl-rnn* nna canc6c moni nrrl n ti ancmal nmi ac Tr hehind it. And- ff Om vvDrrrvf v6rsr . rrr urrv! v t rrl/uru ^- people in general there is also a cfear power mc'tive, certainly not this is not a bad way of making researchers to bc scoffed" at: say and what they d-o, forcing thern to accountable for what they .' +1^-+ r+ lnqaf nqrlo nf +-lL'ih+^ll'imiLl l-.1-rarr *.h'ink tharr ud-N ^^ DU vtta v a u f Y4D v vaL uD vf wrrQ L '.'1-rqt _lLl_jlEjjgj-]Jjfl can be jud-ged" by non-colleagues. And finally: have to cornmunicate power interest: the middlemen have a cfear fike all- interpreters
-2- in particular and middlemen in general they can control commulication ehennc'l s :.nd nnssih"l rr :.1 so m:ko somp monarr nrrt nf J:ho n?^.a<c va U vf UffU J lrUVgoO. About all of this there is nothing new, nor anything abnormal this is what social and human life is about: conflict and coopera- *i nn hnnmnn-' fl i qh:rmnnrr i q Ttro nn-i nl-. r^ro mrlza nnl .' fhq+ +h6 UrQrI, IITIL'llLUIry d,llu uJDrralrlvtrJ. rtt- r---- --d ",--T'g iq n nn'liiieo nf forms of nresentaiion- and nni.hino iq einad hrr rv a vvlru!vp vr tv!rrrr vL vrv9urrusv!vtr iivutfJtr< aJ aqlttcu uv nnl .itin:llrr (hrrt T{ oll nlln^--s q*;ll bein.." blind f,o i+ cnlnrtr vurrf6 vrrffu Uv rU. !V aLL Vlr@116gD !UfVuI rUrra PUfJUJUaTTJ \uuu reinains at the shallow level-) ttre noment the form of presentation L..+'i- +1^^ is not'nerelv seen in the context of intellipni|irj+-. y uuvr v vf rrrvurr!<lvlJ r uuu vv . ffl uffg participation. context of feedback. fn othe-r words, as a two-way channel of comnunication rather than a more effici-ent one-way channel being able to reach into the deeper recesses and corners of societies and the minds and hearts of men and women, young and ol-d_ ever)rwhere. Both of these are terribly important aspects of the -l stonr nf f'orms of nresenta.tinn: increaSed intelf irn'i h'i itrr- in...r-c^-^,1 v L fif Lrr6rurf us r uJ rffurs@Dyu _irf , feed-back and accountability; both must be laken into account. There But it is not the whole story. is a deeper l-evel- to fnrms nl nreseni,ation.This f,a.ke as ,c nnint would of dena.rtrlre not the social of the conmurricative act, I g:roup d-istribution from a smaf communicating with itsel-f vj-a that group communicating to many more neon'le io tho nninf th:1, neonle start colrmunicatinp" to sr:ient'i st,s di- ran f l rr And horrnnd I hi sr r Ln *.he nni nt lrhov.o arrcr.rrbndrr - corlmunicates with everybody about scientific findings, whether this .i^ - next lcwel ^- -^!.',lre and that is lha dopntrT ,Dnnre^1.. -^-'r - ID a ils^u lsVsf atiu <U@f U! flvU.lfis . ULfoU lD UIIV UUYUYI @VUIJAVII . would look (possibly at the form of commrmication a better eLpression i,h:n ttfnrm nf nr.esent:tiontr) a.nd its refation the content that is to y!9ugrl'lqllg .'ornrnunicated - presumably (social) science findings. ln short, Lt 'i^ ^^+ ^^'r-- - ^"estion bctween sender and roce'i rrcr- fql of refation r- lLvu vrLLJ o qugD uJvil vr rsr@ulvr I v9 uwcsfl Dqifucr cffu ruvurvur t comm'rnicated, between communication and that which is attempted between s)-mbol- and symbolized, between sign and that which the sign rl:rrinc rorrroqpnts sc i d thi s vro can now abandon the d.istinction , Le v rrrb uals - put way - they are between the"shalfowrrand- a"deep"level since this of the same coin. There is only the problem two sides
-1- that Lo many people the popular-ization aspect d-oni,"rates so much becarrsc it is so easy tograry - that the other ar;pect is losb sigirt of. The shl"llowness also enters at another point: the step fron popularization to vulgarization is brt a short one, particularly when the mid-dlemen assume that they r.mderstand fully the research oet findings. nenn-l e in r"eneral befierro '^rhal fhav from the middle- L' men is the same as whab is availab-le at the source I and the resear- chers d-o not care about the entire process andfor are unabfe to communr-micate witki the communicators so as to exercise an influence 'i nn i t - a.nd hon rmg Lo e':.amof r:c ed wi t,h nnn.r'l a.r a I a m. <Jru vuv rrru (r t ) In semioticd-d. distinction is often mad"e between the sernarr- +; ^ crmlanli n anfl nr2rfllrAi.i r: :sneCtS Of What iS hefe fefeffefl tO urv, as communication. What above is referred- to as the shallow aspect be in the pragmaLic it beccrnes a question wou-Ld category: of sociaf And what is referred- consequences of communication. to as the deeper a question aspect woufd- be in the semantic category: of translation. the syntactic That means there is still aspect to d-iscuss: the structure per se of the }anguage of communication. fn order to us make use of a concrete example explore that let as an intro- probfem. duction to the more Eeneral ) - Tha nrnhlFm of form and content: :.n ev:mnlc 4 ljrrs er! . rf f v urrr vr !v!rrL vvrr vvf r v. vJlerr!P!v v!vvr To discuss this problem an example is indispensable, and I have chosen the exampfe of a possible dramatic presentation of The content, consequently, imperialistic refations. is what one n j mh* .i na I 1 *ten c*-,r ar,.vn onrr nr16.pss of mnor"i " lism anfl f o1rn the of d-rama (tneatre) is that as usuafly conceived of. In discussing t-^,o ol.,vious aspects this I am leaving aside of some importance: first, in order to tafk about lmperialism at al-l I have to use an other form, that of a ruritten language, in casu English. A,nd second, making it more conventional when d-iscussing theatre I am certainly to make the points than it is in order clear.
Recommend
More recommend
