I introduce the term "binary opposition" into my discussions from time to time, and I thought it might be worth some effort to explain what the term signifies, and why understanding it is worth anyone's while. I've noticed, since doing that some time ago, that one benighted soul, who has noticed this tendency of mine, has become so obsessed with trying to understand why, that he's followed me around the board like an Irish Setter, pointing to everything he can, barking: Binary Opposition! Binary Opposition! (or BO, as he's shortened it which gives it that Irish Setter like bark sound); I guess he's hoping I'll explain it to him in a way he can understand it. I've tried a number of times, but he persists in barking excitedly whenever he sniffs some "BO." Recently he managed to confuse himself by associating BO with body odor. There's a metaphorical lesson in there somewhere, but I hesitate to ferret it out. I managed politely not to laugh out loud.
So, for anyone curious about what can be a fascinating topic, this is an effort to put together a more concise explanation I've offered else where, and I feel it's worth the effort, because binary opposites have so much to do with the way we organize our internal worlds, and the way political discussions get folded into repetitive boxes, like copied suburban houses in a development.
Think of it, binary opposites are easy to find, we all use them in our conceptual thought process, and sometimes the very way we value our thoughts is based on preformed hierarchical patterns that set the stage and create a momentum that almost pre programs where a discussion will go, and at another level, where societal behavior may go. Some of the first to do this in any codified "scientific" way were a group of philosophers and social scientists known as "Structuralists." In recognizing this pattern and it's more or less ontological force, some explorative folks have begun to try to figure out whether it's necessary that the structure of language and thought be so rigidly predictable, or if there might be some strategies for breaking out of what might well be called "the box."
So, then, "binary opposition" is really a simple and elegant abstract concept. I first encountered the term somewhere in my studies of philosophy, logic, and anthropology -- it's been so long I can't remember precisely where. Following you will find a couple of very brief descriptions from Internet sites, there are many sites that discuss it, if one simply does a search, so for that one poor misbegotten soul who follows me around, there's really no need to do that, pointing to my own binary oppositions, one can simply learn to observe one's own :
quote:
A binary opposition is a pair of opposites, thought by the Structuralists to powerfully form and organize human thought and culture. Some are commonsense, such as raw vs cooked; however, many such oppositions imply or are used in such a way that privileges one of the terms of the opposition, creating a hierarchy. This can be seen in English with white and black, where black is used as a sign of darkness, danger, evil, etc., and white as purity, goodness, and so on. Another example of a contested binary opposition is rational vs emotional, in which the rational term is usually privileged and associated with men, while emotional is inferior and associated with women. The list goes on. Deconstruction sometimes involves identifying the oppositions working in a text and then demonstrating how the text itself undermines the hierarchy implied or asserted by the opposition.
quote:
KEY TERM! BINARY OPPOSITION This is a sophisticated but important idea that will help you understand how ideas and meanings are being shaped, created or reinforced in a text. It is 'a theory of meaning' and an idea that can be applied to all texts; it is especially useful when analysing poetry where meaning has been 'compressed' into a very few words.
In the mid-20th century, two major European academic thinkers, Claude Levi Strauss and Roland Barthes, had the important insight that the way we understand certain words depends not so much on any meaning they themselves directly contain, but much more by our understanding of the difference between the word and its 'opposite' or, as they called it 'binary opposite'. They realised that words merely act as symbols for society's ideas and that the meaning of words, therefore, was a relationship rather than a fixed thing: a relationship between opposing ideas.
--------->
Recognizing such binaries can open up the ideas the writer is trying to express. Look out for these oppositions as they can allow a deep understanding of what is happening in the text as well as alerting you to the 'big picture' - what it is all about.
So the question really is, why notice them? That last sentence in the above quote is only one clue, really, there's more. Those of us who are intrigued by the efforts of those trying to get out of the box of our conceptual thinking, because we are "they," so to speak, are often drawn to it because of the social paradigms of hierarchy we find ourselves in, which themselves set up conditions of authority, based on judging better or worse. Some are comfortable authoritarian structures, their promises of security, or whatever, some aren't, that's about all I will offer on that at the moment. To be interested in this, it's important to recognize the tendency of that interest to be based on a judgement of its own. That's important to be aware of because it's the very beginning of the binary process itself! And if we are trying to understand how we trap ourselves in a binary process, then it's important to be aware of how it works, and where it begins. Do that without forming a judgment if possible -- and that will involve doing it without attaching a value to it -- and then just observe where it goes; that's the best I can offer.
When I call attention to a binary opposition, that's essentially what I'm doing, just noticing the tendency, and noticing that a valuing may be taking place, and that from there, a process unfolds based on that primary paradigm one sets up in one's own thought process. Notice, too, that this is a phenomenological experience. No one can know if you are aware of the process going on or not. That's why it's worth calling attention to it. It can be like a shared signal that people can recognize. Or like turning on a flashlight in the dark.
Now, why would that be helpful?
I'd like to start with something literary and metaphorical. The movie Pi, mainly because I enjoyed the movie immensely, and also because I found a nifty site that actually deals with the issue using the movie as it's paradigmatic focus (click on the picture of Max, it's a link to the site).
quote:
Pi (see Pi the movie) is not, as most critics claim, a schizophrenic science-fiction thriller.
We refuse to fall into the naive pseudo-psychological interoperation but it’s is a very important movie to be with us, while we rush to the next millenium.
We also attempt to say meaningful things about the movie without categorizing it as other do, in the science-fiction genre, to be more precise, we actually categorize it for the sake of decategorization.
As Sol tells us in the movie itself, we filter everything through our obsessions and concepts. In this text, we filter Pi with some of the concepts found in postmodern and fuzzy logic theories, and then we attempt to go further…
The story of Pi can be told through deconstruction of its content into binary oppositions, and by defusing these oppositions using a critical tool we suggest in the text - fuzzy deconstruction.
We claim that it is possible to continue where deconstruction stops in silence. We use 'Pi' to demonstrate this. This will hopefully allow you to watch (or re-watch) it from a slightly different perspective…
Or group think by intellectuals that have nothing better to do... Groupthink
quote:
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight. ... Origin
The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune: “ Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. ”
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject: “ A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. [1] ”
The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of Newspeak words such as "doublethink" and "duckspeak", from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
[edit] Causes of groupthink
* Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion. * The group isolates itself from outside experts. (In order to make a well informed decision, a group should invite qualified experts to help weigh the possible risks.) * Strong leadership leads to groupthink, because the leader is more likely to promote his/her own solution.
Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:
* Directive leadership. * Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. * Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.
[edit] Symptoms of groupthink
In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. 2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. 3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. 4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. 5. Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. 6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. 7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. 8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions. ... Preventing groupthink
According to Irving Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily doomed to groupthink. He also claims that there are several ways to prevent it. Janis devised seven ways of preventing groupthink (209-15):
1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts. 2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group. 3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem. 4. All effective alternatives should be examined. 5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group. 6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts. 7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[5] During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, in order to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Pi was a great movie, by the way. But isn't "Binary Oppositions" the same as "Dialectic"?
Gnarlie, I see it as two separate concepts but can be closely related. Dialectic does not necessarily have to a hierarchical structure to work. It can be just two concepts that in the end molded into one-or at least incorporating both ideas into the final product. So BO (short since I always misspell my words-just do a Google Search for "Binnary Opposition") can start a process of Dialectic.
BO is just the identifying as the hierarchical nature of our language. Of course many intellectuals try to identify hierarchies when none were assumed. Take Female/Male I take on this broad concept neither greater than or less than any portion.
But of course the context of the BO is important in identifying this aspect. So in one passage I can see the BO and other times it can simply be a dichotomy that is created for simplicity.
I believe that Audrey would also have a different take on these issues and hopes she has a chance to visit.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Pi was a great movie, by the way.
But isn't "Binary Oppositions" the same as "Dialectic"?
It is essentially the two parts of a dialectic. It's also inherent in computer language. And understanding it can open many doors, or perhaps open the tops of boxes, the kinds of boxes dogma can create:
From my earlier quote:
quote:
Recognizing such binaries can open up the ideas the writer is trying to express. Look out for these oppositions as they can allow a deep understanding of what is happening in the text as well as alerting you to the 'big picture' - what it is all about.
And back to Pi
quote:
Part I - Moving between binary oppositions “The Movie is not in Black and White, Its in Black or White"
Max can’t remain on borderlines for long, The borderline between religion and science, numerology and mathematics, and between all the other binary opposites that construct the movie, since in his aspiration to true knowledge and patterns he crosses them in a process of self-mutilation.
Self mutilation is his way to re-connect to the great image of the sun – the source of the other knowledge, the absolute priori synthetic knowledge that is different than worldly posteriori-synthetic knowledge. The place where knowledge is at and the location where anxieties disintegrate. Max’s sisyphean world revolves around itself, even through it seems to him that he almost understands, that he’s close, that he’s almost there… He always returns to the same original location that leads to his madness. This [is] a system that does not lead to anywhere, does no point us to any meaning. In the first scene, Max’s knows the numerical answer to any arbitrary algebraic operation, but in the last scene, after he drilled into his brain, He seems to loose this capability, we find him sitting in the park, staring at the sun light trough tree leaves…
Max as Bataille and Derrida does not re-establishes our world but reports and exposes the combinations and layout of opposite binary oppositions and relations between them. The process of exposing these concepts does not construct structures of meaning but brings to fuzziness of borders…
Max is equipped with the tools of modern science – mathematical theory, knowledge of the history of classic western theories, books, symbolic argumentative logic, scientific method of experimentation and documentation, a Microscope, Professional Academic education and titles, mainframe computer hardware and ability to write numerical analysis software. This is exactly the reasons he fails in his quest for knowledge, since as Einstein said: “So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”. This is better understood when we understand that the laws of modern mathematics are based on set theory and symbolic logic...
Nature is gray scaled, Life can’t be reduced to deterministic numerical pattern and true knowledge is available only at death. Max search can be seen as the saga of the 20th century that is doomed to fail since it uses the wrong tools. Other tools are available, they mustn’t necessarily be non-scientific, other logic systems, set of axioms and interpretive methods are possible. The story of movie Pi unfolds when we reveal the underlying binary oppositions that are woven through it...
Gerry might be onto something, even though she seems to blame everything on ethnicity.
Pi was a totally Jewish movie. Neurotic, ADHD, obsessive-compulsive, antisocial and manic-depressive. Not recommended for non-Jews, unless you have some unnatural curiosity about them.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
As a sequel, be sure to watch The Fountain, which was also made by Aronofsky. Not really a sequel, but you can see his talent mature. The Fountain is pretty great. Very mystical.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Binary Opposition are TWO opposing views, usually the result of ethno-centric programming or religious programming. Dialectics aims to come to a mutually acceptable consensus on the opposing views. In a sense each overcomes the faulty programming by recognizing that seeing beyond the programming is beneficial for all of mankind.
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Originally posted by Gerry: Binary Opposition are TWO opposing views, usually the result of ethno-centric programming or religious programming. Dialectics aims to come to a mutually acceptable consensus on the opposing views. In a sense each overcomes the faulty programming by recognizing that seeing beyond the programming is beneficial for all of mankind.
Gerry, I guess I would not frame it in that manner. Do you think other cultures would never create BOs? Can it not be programming by Marxist doctrine also?
You are right most of the time that is the case on dialectics, but the process is only good as when we have two valid assumptions. Otherwise you just end up with junk.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Binary thinking: Supporting Christian concepts of peace and loving one's neighbor, and the secular concepts of war and killing one's neighbor. Both held at the same time.
Department of War becomes the Department of Defense. Down the line, it becomes the Department of Peace.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Originally posted by Gerry: It is all influenced by ethno-centric programming, methinks
What's "It"?
Binary Opposition.....
and...
quote:
Binary Opposition are TWO opposing views, usually the result of ethno-centric programming or religious programming.
I would suggest this: in observing how thought occurs in the mind, recognizing a binary opposition may merely be seen as an identification of the first steps in a rational thought process where one can identify, with concepts, a particular rational set: "that, not that."
Your second quote indicates a conclusion that you've place on what the words "binary opposition" mean that is already "loaded" with values. But mathematically speaking, binary opposition is itself a concept that attempts to describe a raw, cognitive process that precedes culturally loaded values. "Views" are only one of the many possible concepts that can be included in a set of two -- that is, the conceptually recognized "that, not that" separated from a whole field of perceptions and distinguished. Noticing this is noticing our cognitive rational process at work in us. Another set of concepts that can be used as cognitive tools for observing our inner process has been offered as "subliminal," "liminal," and "supraliminal." These are offered as an attempt to identify levels and types of consciousness. Supraliminal would be associated with processes that have more of an emphasis on abstract, rational thinking. This can be very complicated to describe, and a whole set of rational concepts have been developed to describe it. Here is a link to a few thoughts about that on another thread, Ecopsychology.
Imagine you have been walking and you come to an ocean for the first time. You are standing at the edge of the water, watching the waves roll in. You see and feel the water, it looks like a blue plain stretching off forever to the horizon, but you cannot walk on it. You have the beginnings of a perceptual "that, not that" right there.
That process can happen with no necessary hierarchical value, that is, no "one is better than the other" value; that value would come with another operation of thought in the cognitive phase once the "that, not that" has been conceptualized and separated out (or perhaps better put, as focused upon) from the whole of perceptual awareness.
Try another angle on this: Imagine that you live next to the ocean in a village and you have canoes and you fish, your village has names for all the
:
