Helmut, List,
I wonder whether the boundary object in your example is less the press/media itself than the practice of reporting, that is, the shared expectation that claims about events can be checked, challenged, corrected, etc. From the standpoint of semeiotic, “lying press” is a sign whose interpretant may be a habit of dismissing reports before considering their evidence. Repeated often enough, one can imagine that it can weaken a practice through which people with very different views might still inquire together.
Of course, a particular report may deserve criticism. However, the blanket accusation of "lying' does something else: it makes the source’s affiliation with the press sufficient grounds for rejecting whatever it reports. So perhaps the essential question is: What habits of interpretation does this accusation produce? And, further, what are the societal effects of these habits?
Best,
Gary R
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _List,recently I´ve come across the term "boundary object". Copy-paste-quote from Wikipedia:"The concept was introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer in a 1989 publication (p. 393):[2][3]
Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.
".So, boundary objects are valuable for bridging or coupling systems with each other. A first thought of mine now is, that an antagonistic subsystem, in order to define and establish its boundary, may strive to dismantle and destroy boundary objects. Example:"The press" had been defined by its main function: To report. A report obviously tells facts, so "a report" should be close to the truth. The antagonistic subsystem in this case is the group of conspiracy-believers. With their term "lying press", its absurd lump-sum nature, that group strives to dismantle and destroy the boundary object "press". They do that with other BOs too, such as "scientists" or "politicians", by not refraining from extremely absurd insinuations, such as cannibalism (Qanon), or ultimative, extraterrestrial strangeness ("reptiloids"). Now, this group usually refers to its own so-called analysis based on "Who does it benefit?". But this analysis of BOs shows, that the said group itself benefits from destroying BOs, to establish a boundary, and thus become a system with competence to act, first of all, by dividing society.Now I wonder: How can acts-on-objects be peircelized?Best regards,Helmut
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► <a href=""mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]">UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
