Thought styles-2
Extracted text from Thought_Styles2.pptx:
Cognitive thought styles - 2
Christianity Isolate Some forms of asceticism Hierarchist Roman Catholicism
Individualist Protestantism
Enclavist New Testament Era Christianity
Increasing limits on personal freedom // Increasing solidarity
Bible Translation Isolate Marginalized persons Hierarchist HB and most receptor language cultures and some national cultures
Individualist Most translation consultants and some national cultures
Enclavist NT and some receptor language cultures
Increasing limits on personal freedom // Increasing solidarity
Cultures and sub-cultures will have certain tendencies, as will texts and even textual corpora (see biblical examples below).
The key point is that these styles offer differing and to a great degree mutually exclusive ways of framing what are usually thought of as specific and personal values in specific situations.
And the availability of these cognitive styles to the individual is based on the underlying negotiation of the self as independent agent, alienated individual, dutiful hierarchist or committed communitarian.
Faith/fulness (/, ) Isolate Blind faith? Hierarchist Commitment/loyalty (faithfulness)
Individualist Belief/confidence/conviction
Enclavist Trust/hope
Increasing limits on personal freedom // Increasing solidarity
Righteousness (/ ) Isolate Existential good faith (true to self) Hierarchist Mutual obligations
Individualist Personal virtue / rights
Enclavist Universal love
Increasing limits on personal freedom // Increasing solidarity
Salvation ( / ) Isolate Personal/apocalyptic Hierarchist Communal/physical
Individualist Personal/spiritual
Enclavist Communal/spiritual
Increasing limits on personal freedom // Increasing solidarity
A network of ideas of loyalty, obligation, and physical salvation of the community within the hierarchist culture of mutual obligation represented at points in the Hebrew Bible were first transformed in an enclavist culture represented in the NT into concepts of trust, love, and spiritual salvation of the community.
And these subsequently have been largely distilled out within modern individualist cultures as ideas of conviction, virtue and personal salvation.
Complementary frames for sin in the Bible Elements Frames Moral-Legal (John 3.16) Defendant Judge-God Judgment Guilt Punishment (Hell) Payment of debtsalvation Legal-Moral system satisfied Insiders Outsiders Medical (Mat 9.12) Patient Doctor-Jesus Diagnosis Sickness Death Treatment-salvation Restoration to wholeness/health Outsiders Insiders Animal Husbandry Journey (Mat 18.10-14) (Mat 7.13-14) Sheep Shepherd-Jesus Caretaking Lost Death Search & Rescue Return to fold Outsiders Insiders Traveler Guide-Jesus Guiding Lost Death (destruction) Show way Find home (life) Everyone Insiders
Individual Authority figure Deliberative action Determination Expected Result Action toward individual Return to balance Who is judged/treated in Bible Who is judged/treated now
Mixing frames (legal/moral and lost sheep): What We Believe -In the bodily resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the eternal blessedness of the saved, and the eternal punishment of the lost; Our Doctrinal Statement -The eternal life of the saved and the eternal punishment of the lost
Depending on how one has negotiated ones self within ones own cultural setting, different metaphor structures above will be more or less salient.
The individualist will probably prefer the moral-legal frame, since it emphasizes personal responsibility.
The enclavist/communitarian might prefer the medical model, since it emphasizes care.
The hierarchist will likely prefer the lost sheep schema, since it emphasizes dependency and hierarchy.
And possibly the isolate will be drawn to the metaphor of the lost traveler, since it seems to speak to the situation of the marginalized.
People in different cultures learn through embodied actions what sorts of selves they are expected to present to the world.
These identities tend to fall into a fairly limited number of categories (particularly for specific communicative purposes), such as individualist, hierarchist, or communitarian.
Individuals negotiate their relationships with others and the world based on these ideas about their own selfhood.
Much of the time the negotiations can be taken for granted (if enough cultural background is shared).
But cross-culturally negotiations often break down, and people end up considering one another impolite at best and morally questionable at worst.
Attachments
- Thought_Styles2.pptx1.2 MB
2 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
Yes, something bad happened to the Hebrew font in the upload. I may have to transliterate the source languages instead or leave them out. As to the caricature issue (I assume you are talking about the "Christianity" slide)-Douglas' whole grid/group system is somewhat open to that criticism. But I think her system is still valuable enough to warrant a discussion and we can deal with these issues (e.g. of stereotyping) along the way. Thomas Kaut said something similar to your comment to me at the TTW in Bangkok in 2007, but in the end the Catholic church still does have a Pope and the church hierarchy and the Protestants do not. What is important to realize is that Douglas' categories are not critical judgments against those to whom they are applied (nor are my applications of her categories-as in this case). Each thought style has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the main goals I have for students (and translators) is to try to get us to step out of our own thought style for a bit and see all the thought styles as just that.
Three years later I am getting around to this again! I think it may help to emphasize that these are cognitive thought styles exemplified in various cultures and sub-cultures, but that of course all of them are present to some degree or another in all cultures at all time. Thus generalizations of all kinds will always be problematic, but somehow necessary to illustrate the point about different thought styles. Of course I operate in a U.S. context, and we are often accused (rightly so) of being provincial, or cultural colonialists, or both. The crucial point is that it is virtually impossible to argue from duty (hierarchy) and autonomy (individualism) at the same time; and arguments based on purity are nearly always traceable to judgments about matters we do not want to discuss openly (e.g. sex) but are pretty sure "we" agree about (communitarianism). I will look again at my categories and see if I can refine them, but in the meanwhile I ask you to take them for what they are-generalizations that will not hold up to close scrutiny, but still may have some usefulness to make the point about cognitive tendencies.