Attending to the invisible ‘Other’

Attention is how we relate to the world and what we attend to determines what we see. At this stage in my life I am interested in how I can ensure that what I choose to attend to doesn’t blinker me to the possible implications of attending too closely to a given idea. The balance between focussing and keeping a broad perspective often seems elusive.

I’m not sure how this can be achieved, other than to be aware that there is probably always an alternative perspective and there may be things I am missing. But recently the focus of my attention means that I am noticing that a number of authors seem interested in similar ways of thinking.

Most recently my attention has been drawn to a podcast (via Mariana Funes) in which Chris Richardson interviewed Ulises Mejias, author of Off the Network.  I am already familiar with Mejias’ work having cited him in a paper co-authored and published with Mariana early last year.

In the podcast Mejias tells us that he and his co-author Nick Couldry have written a new book, soon to be published, in which they reflect on how the conversation has shifted since he wrote ‘Off the Network’. At that time, pre-Snowden and Cambridge Analytica, few people were interested in critical studies of the internet. Now there are many articles being published that are critical of the network. Mejias likes the direction things are going but still has some concerns. Whilst noting that attention has shifted from believing that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon can do no wrong, to thinking that they need tighter controls and regulation, he doesn’t believe that this can be done by throwing more technological innovation and more algorithms (which are becoming increasingly complex) at the problem.

In their new book Mejias and Couldry consider ways in which to unmap the network and un-think these technological determinisms. They question what happens when networks no longer promote agency but instead become templates for organising and structuring society. Mejias believes that a lot of our social biases are being mediated through our social devices and that we don’t even think about this. We carry smart phones and pay our internet bills, but what goes on behind the scenes is opaque and invisible.

It is this idea of what is invisible that interests me. What are the implications of what is invisible for how we live and learn? What are the implications of not being able to see the whole picture? Mejias’ argument is that in this digital age if you are not in the network, you are invisible, you are ‘Other’. This he calls ‘nodocentrism’ – a way of thinking that becomes so dominant that it erases all other ways of thinking, ‘the rendering illegible of everything that is not a node’ (p.10 Off the Network). The network can only see nodes and only recognise other nodes.

Mejias suggests shifting our focus to the spaces between the nodes and between the lines in a network. This space is important. It is not empty, and it can influence the network, although in this interview Mejias didn’t explain how. Does the invisible actually connect the nodes in some way? This reminds me of questions and discussions about the influence of observers (called ‘lurkers’ by some) on the web. What might the influence of the invisible be?

Iain McGilchrist also writes about the spaces between, but in a different context. Mejias’ concern is with nodocentrism and that the invisible ‘Other’ is not ignored but acknowledged. McGilchrist’s concern is with the meaning of our lives and that we underestimate that we are not atomistic. In an interview with Rebel Wisdom he says: ‘There is no way in which I exist independently of all of you and all of the planet and of all of the people who came before me, and indeed in a strange way I am part of something that is to come. That is all not in me or in them or in some sort of gaps between us but is in the betweenness’.

For McGilchrist the spaces between are critical for meaning. He uses two examples to explain this. The first – an electric current. He says: An electric current is manifest between two poles, a positive pole and a negative pole; it’s not in the positive pole, it’s not in the negative pole, it’s not even in the positive pole plus the negative pole, nor is it in the space between the two poles, because that space is nothing. It’s in the whole betweenness of the two poles and what that brings about at a wholly different level.

McGilchrist’ second example is music. In the Rebel Wisdom interview, he says: ‘Music is all betweenness. Take a note A flat, what does it mean? Absolutely nothing. Take another one, a B. It means absolutely nothing. Put 30 000 of these things together and you’ve got Bach’s B minor mass – which means a hell of a lot. So, what happened there? It’s not in the notes so it must be in the spaces between the notes, but the spaces between the notes in a melody are just silence, the spaces between notes in harmony are just silence, the spaces between the beat of the rhythm are not there, so if you put a lot of things that mean nothing together, a lot of spaces that mean nothing together, you find something that means more than anything you can experience in the world. How does that happen? The answer is betweenness.’

So, for McGilchrist and for Mejias, the spaces between, whilst invisible, are redolent with meaning and highly significant to our understanding and knowledge, just as the empty space in atoms, which makes up 99.9% of their structure is significant to our understanding of matter.

Both Mejias and McGilchrist believe in the importance of being willing and able to recognise the invisible ‘Other’ – that the invisible ‘Other’ makes a significant contribution to our lives, knowledge and understanding; without an understanding of the ‘Other’ we cannot see the whole.

McGilchrist believes an understanding of the ‘Other’ to be essential for an understanding of ourselves. In his book ‘The Master and his Emissary’ he writes:

…. the self originates in the interaction with ‘the Other’, not as an entity in atomistic isolation: ‘The sense of self emerges from the activity of the brain in interaction with other selves’ (p.88).

…. An affective relationship with ‘the Other’ over distances of time and space provides the wherewithal to understand ourselves as part of a three-dimensional world – not just three-dimensional in the spatial sense, but with temporal and emotional depth, too …. (p.365)

Mejias’ understanding of the ‘Other’ and feeling invisible comes from his personal experience of being an immigrant. He has said:

‘That experience of being in this country as an immigrant, both inside and outside, having to adopt certain ways of thinking and having to erase other ways of thinking, other parts of me that cannot be rendered in this new context, I think that’s where this idea [of nodocentrism] came from.’

Mejias believes that there are things we can do politically to address this; choices are important; research will have to become more open. It’s something we need to do for ourselves.

McGilchrist believes that we need to access the world beyond words. The world ‘beyond’ ourselves (p.399, The Master and his Emissary). In the Rebel Wisdom interview, he says he thinks we can actually change things, but we each have to take it upon ourselves to be part of the change.

The strong message from both these authors seems to be the need to recognise that we may not be seeing the whole picture, either on or off line and that we should be open to the ‘Other’.

It may be that I am making links between these two authors where they don’t exist, or which don’t resonate with readers of this blog post. Perhaps the focus of my attention is such that I have failed to see the whole picture, which would be ironic. It is difficult to access a world beyond words.

But sometimes words do resonate. To end this post, here is a quote which I saw at the Kochi Biennale (Fort Kochi, Kerala, India) earlier this week, which serendipitously also references the ‘Other’, but in another context.

Virtual hyper-connectivity has paradoxically alienated us from the warm solidarities of community; that place of embrace where we can enjoy our intelligence and beauty with others, where we can ‘love’; a place where we don’t need the ‘other’ as an enemy to feel connected.

Imagine those pushed to the margins of dominant narratives speaking: not as victims, but as futurisms’ cunning and sentient sentinels. And before speaking, listening to the stone and the flowers; to older women and wise men; to the queer community; to critical voices in the mainstream; to the whispers and warnings of nature.

Anita Dube. Curatorial Note. Kochi Biennale 2019

4 thoughts on “Attending to the invisible ‘Other’

  1. ggoldbergmd January 6, 2019 / 3:37 pm

    This is huge, Jenny.
    In the philosophical approach of Emmanuel Levinas, the focus on the relational and the experiential in relationship to the Other is fully developed with the general conclusion that ‘ethics is first philosophy’ which I translate as “we must ‘co-exist’ before we can ‘exist'” and that ‘ethics precedes ontology’–Being for the Other precedes Being for oneself. We are defined in terms of our relationships. And yet we have a deeply ingrained self-protective tendency to ‘totalize’ and ‘reduce’ the Other that is encouraged through Cartesian egocentrism that, as a false absolutism, stands against relationalism or relativity–it is part of the overbalancing in the Western world toward the left hemispheric digitization of time and space that supports the drive toward totalization and self-isolation, undermining and de-legitimizing communication, eventually leading to binary thinking, dichotomization, and the perpetration of violence. Thought does not bring us into existence. We exist so that we can think about what existence means. There is a need to recover balance and integration, and the recognition of the invisible–the relational. Peirce called it ‘Thirdness’ or the mediational that maintains balance and complementarity. In Peircean evolutionary process metaphysics, this is the level of ‘Agapism’ or ‘Evolutionary Love’. Not self-serving Eroticism. But the recognition that we are commanded by the Other. We are responsible for the welfare of the Other. We are bound to the Substitution of ourselves for the Other. We define ourselves and who we are in terms of our relation to the Other. And we cannot expect reciprocation. We cannot expect benefit from beneficence.

  2. jennymackness January 8, 2019 / 11:58 am

    Thank you so much for this very helpful comment Gary. I need to look further into the work of Emmanuel Levinas and I still need to learn more about Peirce’s work. I have noticed that in recent interviews McGilchrist stresses the importance of the American pragmatists, James, Dewey and Peirce. As a teacher I am familiar with the work of Dewey, but need to become more familiar with the work of James and Peirce. I am expecting Peirce to feature more strongly in McGilchrist’s new book, which he has said is nearly finished.

  3. Bruno Annetta January 19, 2019 / 10:44 pm

    Hi Jenny
    Thank you again for continuing the conversation about what I think is extremely relevant and important. In terms of my efforts to be ”part of the change” I have done a number of things … which all come clearly under the heading of “creating possibility for myself and others” … Currently I am working on a scifi movie script which is the vehicle for the message that Iain McGilchrist is trying to deliver to others. I would like your thoughts on one idea that I put forward in my script. I’m presenting cognitive dissonance as a key problem in the world (the story is set in 2029). A huge Neurotech corporation believes that by eradicating cognitive dissonance through brain rewiring, people will be happier, logical and law abiding etc. The protagonist believes that cognitive dissonance is required for the creative process as it arouses one into trying to put two opposing things together (find the “betweeness”). From my reading of Iain McGilchrist’s book I have extrapolated the ideas presented to the point where I have the protagonist state that it is the right hemisphere that is able to cope with and manage cognitive dissonance and not the left … and therein lies our society’s problem, assuming that it is the left hemisphere’s view that currently dominates … what do you think?
    Ciao Bruno 🙂
    PS If you are interested in reading my script I would be more than happy to send it to you once I have finished.

  4. jennymackness January 21, 2019 / 7:02 am

    Hi Bruno,

    It’s lovely to hear from you. Happy New Year.

    The script for your scifi movie sounds fascinating. I wonder if you have written to Iain McGilchrist about it, or considered attending the course he will be speaking at here in the UK in June – https://www.field-field.com/courses/iain-mcgilchrist-exploring-the-divided-brain/ It would be interesting to hear Iain’s comments on this.

    Looking through his book “The Master and his Emissary’, I can’t find reference to cognitive dissonance. Instead, as you will know, he focusses on the different attention each hemisphere pays to the world. On p.130 he does reference an author, Michael Gazzaniga, who writes about ‘cognitive strategy’, who appears to believe that the left hemisphere has better cognitive strategies than the right, which McGilchrist dismisses.

    And he does make reference to dissonance. For example on p. 419 he writes:

    “Specifically there are universal natural preferences at the physiological level for harmony over dissonance. Harmony causes changes in the autonomic nervous system, with a slowing of the heart. Dissonance activates areas of the brain associated with noxious stimuli, and harmony areas associated with pleasurable experience.”

    And ….. “In terms of the hemispheres, the right hemisphere is more sensitive to harmony, more involved in the processing of it, and more sensitive to the distinctions between consonance and dissonance. And there is a specific right hemisphere link with processing consonance, and a left hemisphere link with processing dissonance.”

    I’m not sure how this might relate to your script. One final thing that might be worth holding in the back of your mind is that every time I have heard Iain speak he always stresses that both hemispheres are involved in everything, it’s just that they do things differently and attend to the world differently. There is probably a good reference to this somewhere near the beginning of the book, but I would have to look for it.

    I would be very interested to read your script. You seem to be working with some very complex ideas. Ultimately, the best person to read it would be Iain himself.

    Jenny

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s