The dumb movie ran late, we spent some time admiring Pippa’s most recent work of art (a full swinging-kitchen-door mural, both sides of the door), and now I don’t have the minutes of awakeness left to produce a fully-realized post on meaning. But to avoid putting it off for another day, I’ll begin what I wanted to say.
A couple of quick responses, first off. I think Dave and I just use the word “accountable” differently. I’m open to the likelihood that Dave has a case that his is righter, but I like my usage, it serves my purposes well, except when it nettles Dave. On this question of usage, I’ll offer politely to disagree with Dave.
The second quick response actually gets at the start of my fuller observations. When I say that if my two initial premises hold (that signifying is ubiquitous and uncontrollable), then my third (that there’s no ethic intrinsic to signifying) follows from them, I don’t mean that expression and interpretation are ethically neutral. No way (as the Apostle Paul would say)! Rather, I mean that the ethical status of our signifying practices derives not from a hypothetical nature of signification, but from other discursive regimes. One could well envision and uphold an Aristotelian ethics of signifying, or a Christian ethics of signifying (starting, perhaps, with the Epistle of James), or a liberal-democratic or an aesthetic ethics of signifying, but none of these would plausibly make a case that their ethic derives simply from the nature of signification.
In order to make an intrinsic ethic of signification work, one would have to be able to account for the vast and persistent domain of signifcation-slippage — to resolve, in other words, the perennial problems of intention, ambiguity, and misunderstanding. So far as my years and perception have enabled me to tell — and that’s not a universal boundary, so I await evidence that has thus far escaped me — the so-called “problem cases” of non-deliberate, ambiguous, and misapprehended signification constitute not a rare aberration, but a tremendous proportion of the cases of signification. I expect that a theory of signifying worth supporting would have a word to say about those cases.
Now, I will close my eyes. Goodnight.
Posted by AKMA at March 24, 2004 06:54 AM | TrackBack"...but I like my usage, it serves my purposes well, except when it nettles Dave."
Life would be a rather dull affair if we all weren't nettled now and then.
But you see, your post is a perfect example of my "purposes" for my "usage" of accountability.
By virtue of the fact that you are not accountable to me for your usage, you are perfectly within your rights to politely disagree! (Which I think would be the "ethical" position.)
That being said, I am interested in what your "purposes" are, what makes you choose the word "accountability" over some other word?
In certain, limited, circumstances, I think I'm somewhat in agreement with you, inasmuch as if you and I shared a mutual interest in broadening the area of understanding of this subject between one another, then we must each implicitly acknowledge the authority of the other in determining when that has been achieved. We hold ourselves accountable to that authority (each to the other) by continuing the conversation until we either achieve our mutual goal, or conclude that such is likely never to occur and give up the effort by simply agreeing to disagree.
But there is some point beyond which this notion fails to be meaningful. I may be interested in exploring the nature of our differences over this term, and therefore I'm accountable to you if I've failed to make clear my ideas. If someone else reading this comment is unclear on my ideas, it is up to me, a matter under my authority, to decide whether or not I wish for that other reader to understand my ideas.
If such a reader were to comment in some fashion that indicated to me that he or she did not understand what I am trying to convey, I don't believe there is any way one could assert there is an a priori burden of accountability on my part for what that reader does or does not take away from what I write here.
Similarly, matters of artistic expression seem to be one-way affairs. An artist makes a statement of some kind, and succeeds or fails to one degree or another, although more often the latter I think, to have that statement received as it was intended. To what extent are we willing to assert a burden of accountability on the part of all artists? There are consequences, of course, but those don't arise from some universally recognized, codified system of authority. They are the aggregate effect of all individuals exercising their own individual authority over deciding how they wish to relate to an artist's work or statement.
I think accountability is a very important idea, because it goes to the heart of how we wish to bound or constrain the behavior of others, as well as our own. I believe that too often, the notion of accountability is stretched or misused to assert the exercise of authority beyond its legitimate boundaries. I don't believe you are doing that in this case, but I believe your argument regarding signification and accountability embraces a concept of accountability that facilitates just the sort of abuse of authority that I object to.
So, when you've had a chance to rest and recuperate, if you care to elaborate, I would be interested in what you have to say. But it's up to you! You're certainly not accountable to me to do so!
And I probably wouldn't even be nettled, either. ;^)
Posted by: dave rogers at March 24, 2004 02:18 PM