Scenes of Instruction
Philosophical Investigations begins with an evocation of the words of Augustine in Confessions. This opening scene has been the object of varying interpretations. The passage reads as follows:
When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and grasped that the thing they called was the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. Their intention was shewn by their bodily movements, as it were the natural language of all peoples: the expression of the face, the play of the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, or avoiding something. Thus as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires. (Wittgenstein [1953] 1968, §1)
Cavell (1979, 1990a), who has given the most sustained reading of this passage, senses here the presence of the child who moves invisible among his or her elders and who must divine speech for himself or herself, training the mouth to form signs so that he or she may use these signs to express his or her own desires. Now contrast this scene of instruction with the famous buildersâ scene, which follows soon after in Wittgenstein ([1953] 1968, §2):
Let us imagine a language for which the description given by Augustine is right. The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs, and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words âblock,â âpillar,â âslab,â âbeam.â A calls them out;âB brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call.âConceive this as a complete primitive language.
Why are these two scenes juxtaposed with each other? Does it make sense to treat the buildersâ language as a distorted version of what it is to teach language? If we transpose the scene of instruction in which the child moves among the adults with that of the builders (treating it as a scene of instruction for ourselves), we might see that even if the child were to use only four words, these may be uttered with charm, curiosity, a sense of achievement. One may say, the child has a future in language. The buildersâ language, in contrast, is closed. Wittgenstein wills us to conceive of this as a âcomplete primitive language.â Yet as Cavell (1995) points out, there is no standing language game for imagining what Wittgenstein asks us to imagine here.
It has been noted often enough that Wittgenstein does not call upon any of the natural languages from which he could have taken his examples; thus, his game in this sectionâwhether with reference to the child or the builderâis in the nature of a fiction through which his thoughts may be maintained in the region of the primitive. But the âprimitiveâ here is conceived as the buildersâ tribe, which seems bereft of the possession of its culture or of an undoubted shared languageâthe language the tribe uses is invented language, not to be confused either with the natural languages found among people who maintain full forms of sociality or with the language of the child.
Wittgensteinâs sense of the child who moves about in his or her culture unseen by the elders and who has to inherit his or her culture as if by theft appears to find resonance in the anthropological literature in the register of the mythological (for instance, in the bird nester myths analyzed by Levi-Strauss [(1964) 1969]). Despite the studies on socialization, rarely has the question of how one comes to a sense of a shared culture as well as oneâs own voice in that culture in the context of everyday life been addressed anthropologically. If asked at all, this question has been formulated as a question of socialization as obedience to a set of normative rules and procedures. But juxtaposing the child with the builders seems to suggest that whatever else it may be, the inheritance of culture is not about inheriting a certain set of rules or a certain capacity to obey orders. As Wittgenstein ([1953] 1968, §3) says, âAugustine does describe a system of communication: only not everything we call language is this system.â And then, as if the surest route to understand this concept is to understand it through the eyes of the child, he points out that the words in a game like ring-a-ring-a-roses are to be understood as both the words and the actions in which they are woven (§7). The child learns that âwe all fall downâ is both a chanting of words in unison with others and the enacting of falling down to go in harmony with the words. Unlike the builder whose language, in Wittgensteinâs description of the scene, is capable of only machinelike actions, the childâs language is not simply about obeying orders but learning what it is to be with others, to âfall downâ in a funny, giggly, fun way.
Concern with childhood surfaces in classical anthropological literature but only as incidental to the intricacies of age ranking, rites of passage, and sometimes with reference to attitudes toward what can only be a fictional category of the âaverage child.â Both Nieuwenhuys (1996) and Reynolds (1995) show how sparse the ethnographic descriptions of children and their agency have been in this literature. Reynoldsâs (1995) work on political activism of children and youth in the volatile and traumatic context of South Africa is special because she shows how tales of folk heroes might have provided a perspective to young people with which to view their defiance of the regime of apartheid even as they had to negotiate questions of obedience, authority, and kinship solidarity within the domains of family and kinship. I would also draw attention to the remarkable account by Gilsenan (1996) and to Das (1990b, 1990c) and Chatterji and Mehta (1995) on the complicated question of what it is for children to inherit the obligation to exact vengeance, to settle for peace, or to bear witness in a feud or in the aftermath of a riot. Claims over inheritance are not straightforward in these contexts, but even in relatively stable societies, anthropological descriptions of culture as either shared or contested have excluded the voice of the child. As in Augustineâs passage, the child seems to move about unseen by his or her elders.
Let me go on to the question that the figure of the child raises here: What is it to say that the child has a future in language? There are several scenes of instruction in Philosophical Investigations: those pertaining to completing a mathematical series, those pertaining to reading, those pertaining to obeying an order. All raise the issue of what it is to be able to project a concept or a word or a procedure into new situations. âAâ writes down a series of numbers; âBâ watches him and tries to find a law for the sequence of numbers. If he succeeds, he exclaims, âNow I can go on.â What has happened here?
One powerful way of understanding what gives a child the confidence to say âI can go onâ is provided by Kripke (1982) with the example of what it is to follow a mathematical procedure or a rule. He points out that Wittgenstein shows convincingly that we cannot speak of an inner understanding having occurred; nor can we say that there are some basic rules that can tell us how to interpret the other rules. Here is how the problem appears to Kripke (1982, 17):
Here of course I am expounding Wittgensteinâs well-known remarks about a ârule for interpreting a rule.â It is tempting to answer the skeptic from appealing from one rule to another more âbasicâ rule. But the skeptical move can be repeated at the more basic level also. Eventually the process must stopââjustifications come to an end somewhereââand I am left with a rule which is completely unreduced to any other. How can I justify my present application of such a rule, when a skeptic could easily interpret it so as to yield any of an indefinite number of other results? It seems my application of it is an unjustified stab in the dark. I apply the rule blindly.
Without going into this argument in any detail, I want to comment on one formulation that is proposed by Kripke (1982): that our justification for saying that a child has learned how to follow a rule comes from the confidence that being a member of a community allows the individual person to act âunhesitatingly but blindly.â Kripke gives the example of a small child learning addition and says that it is obvious that his teacher will not accept just any response from the child. So, what does one mean when one says that the teacher judges that, for certain cases, the pupil must give the ârightâ answer? âI mean that the teacher judges that the child has given the same answer that he himself would have given.⌠I mean that he judges that the child is applying the same procedure he himself would have appliedâ (90).
For Kripke (1982) this appeal to community and to criteria of agreement is presented in Wittgenstein as a solution to the âskeptical paradoxââthat if everything can be made out to be in accord with a rule, then it can also be made to conflict with it. But this skepticism with regard to justification, says Kripke, applies to the isolated individual: it does not hold for one who can apply unhesitatingly but blindly a rule that the community licenses him or her to apply. As with application of a word in future contexts, there is no âinner stateâ called âunderstandingâ that has occurred. Instead, as he says, there are language games in our lives that license under certain conditions assertions that someone means such and such and that his present application accords with what was said in the past.
My discomfort with this description arises from the centrality that Kripke (1982) places on the notion of rule as well as from the processes he privileges for bringing the child in agreement with a particular form of life that would license such blind and unhesitating obedience to the rule.
If we take the teacher in Kripke (1982) to be the representative of the community within which the child is being initiated, then I am compelled to ask whether the âagreementâ in a form of life is purely a matter of making the child arrive at the same conclusion or the same procedure that the adult would have applied. Rather, it appears to me that, as Cavell (1990a) suggests, this agreement is a much more complicated affair in which there is an entanglement of rules, customs, habits, examples, and practices and that we cannot attach salvational importance to the learning of rules as the best route to the inheritance of culture.1 Wittgenstein ([1953] 1968) speaks about orders or commands in several ways: there is the gulf between the order and its execution or the translation of an order one time into a proposition and another time into a demonstration and still another time into action. I do not have the sense that the agreement in forms of life requires the child to produce the same response that the teacher does. To have a future in language, the child should have been enabled to say, âAnd after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires.â There is of course the reference in Wittgenstein to following a rule blindly.
âAll the steps are already takenâ means: I no longer have any choice. The rule, once stamped with a particular meaning, traces the line along which it is to be followed through the whole of space.âBut if something of this sort really were the case, how would it help?
No; my description only made sense of it was to be understood symbolically.âI should have said: This is how it strikes me.
When I obey a rule, I do not choose.
I obey the rule blindly. ([1953] 1968, §219, emphasis in original)
And then in §221 he explains, âMy symbolical expression was really a mythological description of the rule.â I cannot take up fully the question here of what it is to speak mythologically or symbolically, but from the aura that surrounds the discussion of these issues, speaking of obeying a rule blindly seems to be similar to the way one speaks of wishes, plans, suspicions, or expectations as, by definition, unsatisfied, or the way one speaks of propositions as necessarily true or falseâthat is, that they are grammatical statements. When Wittgenstein ([1953] 1968) talks about rules and agreement being cousins, the kinship between them seems more complicated than Kripkeâs (1982) rendering of either of these two concepts allows.2
I want to take an ethnographic vignette now to show the entanglement of the ideas of rule, custom, habit, practice, and example in what might be seen as constituting agreement within a particular form of life. Gilsenan (1996) gives us a stunning ethnography of violence and narrative in Akkar, a northern province of Lebanon, in the 1970s. From the sev...