From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Subject: Re: Ethnobiological Classification
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:20:22 GMT

In article <-1363797538snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov17.154906.2583@ils.nwu.edu> pautler@ils.nwu.edu writes:
> 
>  > I understand that the cultural divide between Aboriginals and Westerners
>  > may be so great that you must be constantly on guard to prevent us from
>  > underestimating it.  But I do believe that the common evolutionary path
>  > we both followed until just recently makes a difference in such a
>  > fundamental activity as categorization unlikely.  It's your categorization
>  > of your former student as a dingo that indicates which social obligations
>  > are now relevant, for example.
> 
> Sorry, I have made no such categorisation whatever. I may well perceive
> two different objects, one being a human and the other being a dingo,
> but it does not follow from that phenomenon that as I internalise them
> I place them in categories, especially framed by any naturally occuring
> universal taxonomy arising from the structure of my brain.

Let me say this more explicitly: I am as certain as you are that there is no
Universal Taxonomy.  What I am claiming is that the cognitive *process* of
categorization is universal; the results of this process (taxonomies) differ
from individual to individual (to say nothing of cultural differences).

You have engaged in this process by conferring 'dingohood' on your former
student.  Your knowledge of dingoes indicates that you should treat them
in a certain way.  It is only by mentally linking your student to dingoes
that you come to realize that you should treat him as you would any other
dingo.  If you want to call it "linking" or "creating a relationship"
instead of "categorizing" because you find the latter term misleading,
I'll accept that.  But I believe we have enough common understanding in this
case that "categorization" should suffice.

>  > It's not a capacity argument; I'm merely arguing that vast cultural
>  > differences
>  > don't necessarily indicate a difference in fundamental cognitive activities.
>  > We all categorize, but our cultures may make use of that activity to a more
>  > or less obvious degree.
> 
> Now you are changing the argument from universal categorisation to
> fundamental cognitive activities. What I am endeavouring to have you
> do is accept the notion that while we may all have a capacity for
> categorisation, we do not all do so. Similarly, we may all have a
> capacity for mapping relationships instead, but we demonstrably do
> not all do so. There are other schemata available for making sense
> of the world, not as rival academic theories but real differences
> among human cultures, and I merely point out one of these to you.

I haven't changed my argument.  Someone else claimed that biological taxonomies
are pretty much the same across cultures, but I don't think that is correct.
Various native taxonomies have been found to agree to a large extent at the
basic-level (e.g. dogs, chairs) but gradually diverge at more superordinate
(e.g. animals, furniture) and subordinate (e.g. dingoes, stools) levels.
I've just been claiming that the mental process by which we categorize is
universal, and I used your example to show why I think this is true of
Aboriginals in particular.

> I have no interest in evolutionary theory one way or the other, so
> I am of sublime indifference whether you want to accept what I have
> said, or how you want to reinterpret it or play with words on the
> matter. You are free at any time to come and live in the bush with
> traditional people, and learn about their world for yourself.

I have assumed that you and I were making a sincere attempt to understand
each other.

	-dp-