On My Primary Research Method

• What do I want to discover?

I want to discover the impressions community members on the near West and South sides of the City of Syracuse have of the I-81 and I-690 freeways adjacent to their neighborhoods. In particular, what it symbolizes or represents in their eyes, if anything.

• How do I plan on discovering it? (This is called your research methods or methodology)

By means of surveys and interviews.

Who am I going to talk to/observe/survey? (These people are called your subjects or participants)

The participants will be community members and representatives.

• How am I going to be able gain access to these groups or individuals?

Via e-mail, and the help of community organizers that will serve as my contacts.

• What are my biases about this topic?

I am inclined to believe that the portions of I-81 and I-690 that run through the City Center of Syracuse do indeed symbolize social barriers.

• How can I make sure my biases are not reflected in my research methods?

I intend to discover through my research whether members of the communities adjacent to the highways mentioned see them as social barriers, and report in my essay what I find through my research, rather than forwarding my own opinion in the essay.

• What do I expect to discover?

Additionally, I would like to gather the opinions of my participants regarding the amount of participation they feel they have regarding decision making in urban development, and whether they are satisfied or not with their inclusion in the social considerations of urban development. Therefore, I expect to discover a whole range of different opinions based on the personal preference of my participants. I expect, however, that most will be inclined to see the freeways as social barriers, and that there participation in the decision making regarding the future of these structures isn’t to their satisfaction.

Freewrite 2

What I have found most interesting in geosemiotics is the idea that objects, such as buildings and structures of various sorts, public spaces like parks, fountain plazas, etc, that are not meant initially to be signs at all can indeed become signifiers. I always thought that as a matter of interpretation and almost as a coincidental curiosity one could find meanings drawn from where these objects are and how they interact with the space around them, but never did I imagine one could develop a cohesive theory, much in the scientific spirit, that would lay out the groundwork for a proper analysis of the signifiers and signified found in objects in place, and how humans enter into discourse with these meanings, and even how the objects themselves enter into discourse with each other. I am still skeptical, however, as to the degree of objectivity the theory, and consequently, the analysis of these relationships of meaning and the discourses that emerge from them have, but, to be sure, there is always a degree of relativity in any theory involving social impressions and interpretations humans have regarding discourses in place. This is only to say I am not sure that any of the elements in the theory can be set in stone as a kind of truth, in the strong sense. What I do think can be set in stone is that wherever there are people, and wherever those people encounter and thus engage with objects that other people have made and have set in place, i.e. in the human environment, those people will have impressions and thus interpret the possible meaning that they see those objects as having, to them and to the society in which they are. And that is what is fascinating about geosemiotics, and semiotics in general for that matter, that it offers a comprehensive way we can approach in study this human social phenomenon of signifier and signified, and the relationship these have with society, culture, human behavioral tendencies, and human communication in general. There arises from the theory a formal language we may employ in talking about these matters, which proves to be quite helpful and of great use.

For these reasons I really just enjoyed working through all of the different research assignments in the process of learning how to apply this newly acquired language together with the knowledge that I initially brought to the table, in a way combining the theory of semiotics with the logic of my own discipline, philosophy, allowing the analytical approach and language of the former to compliment that of the latter, and vice versa. By far and large, I enjoyed the learning process and the outcome, an analytical consciousness all the greater and profound, which enables me to do what I seek most in life: understanding it (in addition to enjoying it of course).

I believe the biggest idea, (not to belittle the others because that would be a mistake and not in tune with what I believe), that I would like to inquire into in a formal research project would be that of segregation in space, as in a community (from smallest to largest), since along the way of our study in this course I have come to discover that even things like physical structures in place can reinforce tendencies in society to keep certain social groups isolated and separate and thus marginalized, not to the degree as in a concentration camp, but in effect, similarly, because notice that the only difference there is between a concentration camp and a marginalized group in society is the fact that in the former there are physical barriers while in the latter the barriers are mental; but when structures such as roadways, bridges, buildings, and the like are erected, consciously or not, such that they reinforce the social notions of these mental barriers that marginalize a certain group, the marginalization becomes more like that of a concentration camp. Examples such as projects, ghettos, and the like can give a empirical illustration of how this is so.

In order to develop these ideas I think I am interested in Interstate-81, which runs right through the middle of the city of Syracuse, and in this way dividing it into clear pockets of poor income communities, both on the West and South sides of the city, and pockets of higher (sometimes rich) income communities, both on the East and North sides of the city, which happen to lie on either side of the freeway. Truth be told, and in all fairness, it does not present itself in reality as clear cut as just described, as the socially historical conditions found in each period of the development of the city present different manifestations and expressions in how the city is divided. At any rate, this subject seems to be a great one for a sustained research project, and consequently a sustained research essay.

Perceptual Spaces

Discourses in place are fundamentally dependent on perception and communication of meaning. It is imperative that we be able to perceive the outside world and that we be able to identify what we perceive as meaning something in order for any discourse to take place. If what we perceive means nothing to us then it is impossible to have a reaction to it. Something as trivial as feeling hot causes in us a reaction, whether conscious or unconscious, of, inter alia, either seeking shade or of activating sweat glands. In order to survive in our environment we rely on our senses, our sensorial stimuli, and on the semiotic relationships that these stimuli have with meaning, i.e., the relationship between signifier and signified. The same is true in geosemiotics regarding discourses in place: we must have a sense of the space within which discourse is taking place, and a sense of the meaning communicated by what is happening in that space. We rely on our vision, audition, olfaction, tact, and taste, to sense the space or objects around us. In geosemiotics, the spaces that these senses open in our minds are called perceptual spaces, and they are listed thusly: visual, auditory, olfactory, thermal, and tactile. (Scollon and Scollon, 52) Here we will investigate the different roles of each perceptual space in given social situations, and their meanings in social relationships.

Visual perceptual space can be understood metaphorically as our camera to the world. The image that we see, given there are no barriers, has a visual field of 120 degrees horizontal and 60 degrees vertical, giving us 576 megapixels of data, or of visual stimuli. (http://cosassencillas.wordpress.com/2007/03/20/la-vision-humana-equivale-a-576-megapixeles/) Instead of analyzing every piece of data, our conscious perception of this image is that of a whole picture. We can then zoom in, as it were, to a given portion, object, or anything within that picture. Whatever in the composite image draws our attention does so because it has meaning, even if that meaning is “I don’t know what it means,” i.e., we identify it as a signifier but are curious as to what it signifies. Likewise, sensation or feeling or emotion acts in a very similar way. Take the signifier to be stimulus, and the signified the effect of that stimulus. So, we may encounter a pretty lady or hansom chap, their visual appearance, the raw stimulus of their image, produces an effect of attraction, which presents itself as a pleasurable experience to us (sometimes so much that it hurts, but that is beyond the point). There is a physical manifestation in our eye when we feel pleasure, whether bodily or psychological pleasure, consisting of the pupil dilating. (http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_spot_lies_and_tell_if_someo) In turn, we may engage in discourse with this visual perceptual space by directing a smile to the attractive person, or by staring with our head in the clouds. Then, the attractive person may look away, smile back, or produce a glare of disapproval. At any rate, this can serve as an example of the discourse taken place within the visual perceptual space, where gestures or body language, aesthetics, accepted or unaccepted social behaviors all play a role. We may say then that the visual perceptual space is very pertinent in our social relations with strangers on the street. Upon contact, however, other perceptual spaces key in.

Suppose you draw up the courage to stop the attractive stranger and say hello. Suddenly, two new perceptual spaces open in your mind with regard to the stranger; now you may be able to smell the person, and if responded in kind, you will hear the person’s voice. Auditory and olfactory stimuli open the possibility for new discourses, new meanings. When we meet people for the first time we are usually very open and attentive to all the sensorial cues given by the person we meet. Our perceptions and reactions depend on the nature of these cues, their social implications, and our own personal dispositions, which will determine how we interact with the other. If we smell a certain perfume or cologne on the person, we will immediately asses whether we like it, whether it is too strong or too soft, whether the person uses too much, too little, or just the right amount, etc. These impressions, however, are not socially determined but correspond to our personal fancies. Similarly, we will make assessments regarding the person’s tone, pitch, and use of words, expressions, etc. Imagine you walk by a vagrant asking for money on the street. If you sense an intense smell of alcohol, and a slurred enunciation, you may be less likely to give the vagrant any money. The predisposition to not give money to alcoholics who are also vagrants results from social circumstances. A society in question may disapprove of alcoholics because they are deemed to be a dysfunctional member of society. Realize, however, that it may be that the vagrant became an alcoholic after becoming homeless, and that becoming homeless may have had little to do with the functional or dysfunctional character of this particular socialite. The smell and voice of the vagrant tells us nothing about these things; but we nonetheless have these predispositions towards alcoholic breath and slurred speech, especially when we are asked for money. Auditory and olfactory cues can be seen to influence our social relationships with strangers, when we have no idea of their personal histories, nor does anything we can sense directly tell us about them, by way inferring from socially derived and or socially accepted notions.

Say that you and the stranger hit it off, so to speak, and decide to have coffee together. As the stranger opens the door of the coffee shop you may place your hand on their back so as to indicate that you wish them to enter first, and to introduce, from the outset, a sense of confidence in the other person. You have now entered in the tactile perceptual space. You may notice that the person is either tense or relaxed; you may pick up on the person’s reaction to your physical approach; or you may be responded in kind as the person places their hand on your back returning the courtesy. Now at the table hands may meet, and a number of things can happen. Again, you may be responded in kind, or, more interesting for our purposes, the person may withdraw their hand from yours. You will judge by the speed at which the person withdraws their hand, by where he or she places it after withdrawing it, or even by the temperature of the hand what the person is feeling, how they perceive you, and in which way you should adopt your behavior accordingly. A third person, who saw the whole thing, from their visual perceptual space can judge that both of you are strangers and that there has been some sort of transgression; or that you are old lovers and that your attempts at physical contact are not welcome; or that the person didn’t expect your hand and was surprised, etc. We can then see that depending on whose perspective we adopt, all perceptual spaces can be relevant in a single space.

It is clear that the perceptions drawn from the different senses play a significant role in social discourses in place. That the perspective of each individual will call for drawing from one or another of these perceptual spaces, and that our judgments of the sensuous stimuli depends on personal as well as social dispositions and influences.

The belief in a god: conflicts and resolutions

Here we have a sign entirely composed of a written message. In that, it is a symbol. The sign also has many indexical elements, which will be discussed further on, as these rely heavily on where the sign is in public space, i.e., on the bus and everywhere the bus moves, on who the sign is interacting with those who read it, those in the bus, those who designed the sign and those who authorized its use on the bus, and to whom it makes reference to, i.e., god (whichever one it may be). First, I will discuss the meaning of its symbolic element.

It is clear. The sign makes a claim about the ontological status of a god, and another about what perspective or attitude one should have toward life provided the first claim is true. The claim “There’s probably no god,” by its very meaning, is consistent with the claim “It is possible there is a god.” The message continues by saying, “[In light of the first claim] now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” But, the first claim, by way of inferential deduction, is, at the same time, saying that it is possible there is a God. Let us examine whether the second portion of the written message is thus compatible with the inverted claim “It is possible there is a God:”

It is possible there is a god.

Now stop worrying and enjoy life.

There seems to be nothing inherently inconsistent with these two claims. Perhaps it will help if we inquire into what exactly we should stop worrying about. Consequently, this inquiry will shed light on who the message is possibly directed toward.

Of course, there are many things human beings can worry about; but we are looking for something that human beings would worry about in the case that there is a god, and this, obviously, depends on which god we are talking about. Without getting into the details of the many religions of the world, we will simply consider traditional worries that follow from religious adherence to the belief of a certain god most generally. One worry could be Judgment Day, or the Apocalypse, or going to Hell (all hells included, i.e., Hades, etc.), or, what is the same, not going to Heaven (all heavens included, i.e., paradise, etc.), or karma (more specifically bad karma), which according to many believers requires God’s implementation of the consequences of karma, and so on and so forth. So, we can see now that if you believe in the possibility that god exists, then you will worry about one of these things insofar as you adhere to any of the religions that ascribe to any of these things. But that is not true; you must believe there is a god in order to believe these things can befall onto you, not merely the possibility of a god. Therefore, the sign is aimed at those who have a very concrete belief that there is a god and all that follows according to the religion of their choice.

Now we know that the first claim is only referring to the ontological status of a god in terms of probability and possibility, that it is probable there is no god and that it is possible there is a god (I hope the difference is clear, and that anything that is probable leaves open the possibility of its opposite). We also know to whom the message is possibly directed. So, we may say that the represented participants are a god (we are not sure which although we can presume which gods might be candidates here given what has been said) and those who worry as a consequence of believing that there is a god; these participants overlap with the interactive participants, that is, those who adhere to the message and those who do not, in addition to those who suspend belief. Setting this discussion aside for later, let us examine the indexical elements in the sign now that we know who the participants are.

It can be interpreted that the sign indicates that those who are in the bus adhere to the sign displayed on the bus, not a very good assumption to make but a possible one nonetheless. Likewise, with those who authorized the use of the sign on the bus. So, by the mere presence of the sign on the bus, the sign it is pointing, as it were, to those inside of the bus and those who are in charge of the bus’ advertisements as well as any belonging to the bus system.

What of the modality and the semiotic systems used in the sign? How are they conveying meaning and or legitimacy/validity? For one, the colors used seem to be nonthreatening, and perhaps, even cheerful. This may be intended for the soothing and luring of the reader/viewer. The main claim, that is the first, is in a bigger font than the rest. This may serve to draw attention to the first claim first, which, by its nature, will shock, provoke, interest the reader to inquire further, and thus read the remainder of the sign. Notice that the message is located primarily on the left side of the sign, in the “given” portion of the frame. Of what is given, we have the “ideal” and the “real.” This could be interpreted as follows: the statement as a whole is what we offer you; the ideal is that you accept the probable/possible quality of the existence of a god, and in turn, act on what is real, namely, that you are alive now and you will enjoy life more the less you worry about things, especially if those things are of a probable/possible quality; and the “new” is “if we have convinced you, look us up, there may be more you will like.”

I picked this sign out because of its controversial nature, and also because of its subject. One of the problems with religious followers is that they are locked into the metaphysical, epistemological, and ontological system, put forth by whatever religion they follow, as an absolute truth. This would explain the purported reasons behind creating the sign: “Ms Sherine said she became angry after noticing a set of Christian advertisements carrying a website address which warned that people who reject God are condemned to spend all eternity to ‘torment in Hell.’” (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106924/Theres-probably-God–stop-worrying-enjoy-life-Atheist-group-launches-billboard-campaign.html#ixzz0f4fjHidK) Those behind the creation and display of the sign said it had a positive message which encouraged people to enjoy life instead of worrying about what happened afterwards.” (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106924/Theres-probably-God–stop-worrying-enjoy-life-Atheist-group-launches-billboard-campaign.html#ixzz0f4mdNWbK) Many in the religious circuit have expressed similar opinions: “The Rev Jenny Ellis, spirituality and discipleship officer, said: ‘We welcome the atheist bus campaign as an opportunity to talk about the deepest questions of life. The God many atheists have rejected is not the God we recognise and this campaign has opened up a dialogue between Christians and atheists which allows these types of misconceptions to be challenged.’” (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106924/Theres-probably-God–stop-worrying-enjoy-life-Atheist-group-launches-billboard-campaign.html#ixzz0f4n4KaPK) I am sure, however, that there are many who view the impact of the sign as negative.

Ultimately, this sign, and any opposed to it, opens the door to inquire about how signs are used to influence division and difference in society, how they can separate or alienate some and not others, and conversely, how they can bring together and include members of society in the discussion of difference and division, especially in topics of fundamental importance such as this one.

This, the last of the signs I will discuss, is all three types of signs: a symbol, an index, and an icon. The text portion of the sign is its symbolic element; the figure that appears sitting pensive on a rock is the iconic element; and the area surrounding the sign to which its meaning is applied and towards whom its meaning is directed is the indexical element.

With regard to what behavior is meant to be controlled with this sign, there seems be a dual message. The text portion is direct “NO LOITERING ON THIS PROPERTY.” Let us assume it is on public property. What then does the statue depicted on the sign mean? The figure is obviously not the typical member of society that this type of sign is meant to control, i.e., those members discussed in the first three signs. It seems to be directed to those members of society that are reflective, and free thinkers in nature, as that would be the typical meaning associated with this particular statue. Perhaps they don’t want us to be thinking, at least not too much, about the meaning and control involved in these signs. For, as it was the case with the second and third sign, it seems highly against the principles of freedom upon which this nation (the USA) was founded to suggest that we should alienate and cage, as it were, our youth, marginalize and exclude our vagabonds (especially the Spanish speaking vagabonds), and to discourage reflective, free thought. What would we make of this sign if we found it on our Syracuse University Campus, or even, on the streets of Syracuse, a college town?

This sign is all three types of signs: a symbol, an index, and an icon. The element of the sign that is a symbol is the red circle with a red line across it, which means “no” or “prohibited.” That the circle, being red and dashed, carries these meanings is determined socially and by convention, and in that it is arbitrary, thus fitting the definition of a symbol. The indexical element of the sign is that its meaning is meant to be applied both to the space surrounding the sign and those members of society represented in the iconic element of the sign. The iconic element of the sign is those human figures depicted within the dashed circle, as they are pictorial representations of their social equivalents in flesh and blood.

As was hinted at in the discussion of the first sign, this sign (the third) deliberately picks out the youth members of society. Although it says nothing regarding loitering, that its meaning implies prohibition allows for the interpretation that youth is not allowed to linger in the area upon which the sign is acting. The behavior then that this sign may be attempting to control is the assumed reckless behavior of the youngest members of society, and more specifically, teenagers, as is suggested by the cap the middle figure is sporting, and even the poses of all the figures. More indirectly, it may also be a message to the parents of the youngest members of society, something along the lines of “Keep your children on a leash,” that is to say, ensure that children are in proper, accepted areas, probably those that have some degree of surveillance, either by the parents, society, or the state.

As a side note, I believe this sign is very much alienating youth, and that the consequences of this can be seen all across America in shopping malls, high-schools, and even at home, among many others.

Like the first sign I discussed, this sign is both a symbol and an index. It is a symbol for the same reason the first sign is a symbol; likewise, it is an index for the same reason as the first sign is an index.

It is necessary for me to translate the text in the bottom half of the sign as it is written in Spanish. That it is written in Spanish will become important in the discussion of the meaning of the sign. The bottom portion reads as follows:

VAGABONDS

ARE NOT ALLOWED

POLICE WILL BE

ALERTED

Upon translation, it should be noticed immediately that what is said in the English portion of the sign is not what is said in the Spanish portion. It could be that there are reasons in translation for this fact, but that is simply not the case. There are words in Spanish that can be used in the stead of loitering, such as holgazanear and merodear. So, either the translators are incompetent, or there is something else at work here. I will assume the latter. What meaning the sign then takes on, for those bilingual in English and Spanish, is not a consequence of the physical space in which the sign is placed, rather, it is a consequence of the choice of language used, indeed, I mean this in a two-fold sense: not only the different languages but also the choice of words that are used in each language.

So, what behavior is the meaning of the sign meant to control, on the one hand, in English, and on the other hand, in Spanish? We can understand loitering to mean exactly what is meant in the first sign that I discussed, namely, “Don’t hang round this area if you are doing nothing productive!” But, the meaning of the Spanish portion of the sign seems to be much more concisely directed to a certain member of society, i.e., the homeless or vagabond. It is inevitable to ask, why is there a difference in the meaning of the Spanish portion compared to the English portion, assuming that it is not a translation issue? I will leave this question open for the reader.

This sign is both a symbol and an index. It is symbol in that the sign consists of a sentence, which is a string of words, and each word, in turn, is a string of letters. These “strings” derive there meaning exclusively from convention, that is, society accepts that the meaning attached to them is indeed their meaning; however, that there meaning be the one accepted by society is purely arbitrary and of no causal consequence, and thus the sentence is a symbol. The sign is an index in that its meaning is to be applied to the area surrounding the sign, thus indicating to whom and in which area the meaning should be applied to and understood to lie within.

I am not clear as to where this sign is located. I can only speculate that it might be on the wall of a high-school, an underground tunnel, a shopping center, or any number of places. I will assume for the purposes of this exercise that the sign is located in public space, by which I mean not private property. Whichever of the possible spaces it may be located in, its meaning seems to imply that if you are a productive member of society, then you are welcome to occupy the space, or to do whatever productive activity, so soon as it is productive, in this space if you will. Conversely, it also seems to imply that if you are not a productive member of society, then you are not welcome to occupy the space, or if your activities are not deemed productive for society, then they are not allowed in this space. So, the sign may be attempting to control the activity of socialites in terms of whether the activity is productive or not. The sign really seems to be placing the authority on what is productive or not in the hands of the socialites, or citizens. For it does not specify any of this, it simply uses the word nothing. I take the usage of the word not to mean literally nothing, but rather, to exclude the activities of the modern day jongleur as well as youthful activities, such the few albeit still present street entertainers, in addition to skateboarders, rollerbladers, break-dancers, and the like. With regard to the modern day jongleur, although one can argue that there is a productive nature in their activities on the street, some may consider them nuisances. More directly, the meaning may seem to be intended for vagabonds, which brings me to the next image.

Freewrite 1

Fortunately or not I did not grow up in the same city but, primarily, in two cities, Los Angeles and Madrid, Spain, although I did live in one other place. More than picking and describing the markers and boarders found in one of them I will speak of those that I found to be in contrast between the two cities.

While I was born in Madrid, before the year I moved to Los Angeles with my mother where she would obtain her PhD. My father followed shortly after. Despite being quite young I do have many memories of the time I spent in the west coast city, especially from four years old onward. We would stay for seven years, after which we moved to Brookfield, Wisconsin; but, as I have mentioned, I will not include my experiences in Brookfield and what they meant to me in what follows. After the nine years in the US of A I moved back to my birthplace with both my parents and now a younger sister, named Sara. (Both my name and my sister’s were chosen based on the premise that whatever names we received ought to be spelt and similarly pronounced in both English and Spanish.) I lived in Madrid nine years before I moved to Syracuse to begin my university studies.

In LA, my family and I lived in the UCLA housing complex behind which was, as I remember it, a very loud and very huge freeway. That border could be said to be the first to mark my memory. Yet, since I was a child living in a big city (very close to Santa Monica, a place called Marvista, which translates literally to Seaview in English), I naturally had boarders all around me. Opposite to the freeway was the street we lived on, Sawtelle, which was again another boarder. In the automobile-based Los Angeles it is only consequent that the two predominant boarders that I remember were both roadways of one type or another. This makes for a blatant contrast to Madrid, as it was, for the most part, and still is a highly pedestrian city. While a child cannot, even at the ages when I was living in Madrid, wonder alone on the streets of LA (due to the historical urban development and design of the city), at least where I lived, it is a common sight in Madrid.

Madrid, as well as all of the Spanish towns and cities that I have visited, is a place where public space is very much occupied and used constantly by many. I recall reading a sign the first time I returned to LA that struck me as utter nonsense, and an obvious abuse of civil freedom. I was fifteen years old and had much more liberty to move about the city, with the help of my cousin who not only drove but also had a car of his own. Having dodged the transportation limit, my cousin and I were able to visit places, such as Hollywood, and walk the street, something that was entirely natural for me given that I had been living in Madrid for six years. It was on one of these walks that I encountered said sign on the wall. It read: No Loitering. After learning what the word loitering meant shock set in. I asked my cousin ‘Is this a private place?’ and he replied ‘No’. I did not understand. How could it be that a citizen cannot loiter in a public place? I could not understand what possible reason could be behind such a measure, such a boarder. Much consumed, or rather, influenced, by the liberal tradition in Europe of which the US of A is the offspring, I was completely baffled at my discovery. For all the questions that I asked my cousin simply was not able to even come up with a speculative answer to any of them, he did not even seem to have given it any thought in the past, nor at that moment for that matter. I came to think that the reason for my cousin’s lack of preoccupation was cultural: that one is simply not on the street if not going somewhere. What I could not answer for myself, however, was whether culture preceded the sign or the sign culture, that is, whether people simply behaved that way from the start and then came the sign, or whether people behaved that way because of the sign.

That is all for now.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!