Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther

(With extensive commentary from Cor van der Weele)

May 9, 2004

Conference on "Complexity of environment and development in the Age of DNA," organized by Peter Taylor. Marine Biological Laboratories, Woods Hole, Massachusetts USA. May 3, 2004

Participatory Theatre and subsequent discussion of Metaphor.

The morning activity of May 3 revolved around "metaphor." First, there was an activity of participatory theatre. The idea, developed by Steve Fitfield, Matthew Puma, and Rasmus Winther was to allow participants of the workshops, in two groups of six, to "incarnate": 1. an alternative and 2. a traditional metaphor associated with genes, development, environment, and/(non-exclusive-)or complexity. Groups were given 45 minutes to decide (via discussion) their metaphors, and then develop and rehearse a theatrical routine. The routine was not supposed to involve speech of any sort. After this, each of the two groups presented their "incarnate metaphor" presentation in turn.

Subsequently, the plays of each group were interpreted by the other group, followed by response from the group.

Upon finishing the presentation and discussion of the plays, we had a general discussion of metaphors initiated by some thoughts regarding the role and structure of metaphor(ical language) by Cor van der Weele.

What follows is a summary of (1) the plays, (2) discussion of the plays, (3) van der Weele's presentation and subsequent general discussion.

(1) The Plays

Group 1.

Act 1. Five members of the group are each kneeling and crouched on the floor. The members are arranged in a circle. The sixth member of the group is also on her knees, but with her back raised. She looks at a notebook on the floor in front of her. She claps slowly and with measure. After each clap the other members, in unison, slowly raise their backs (while remaining kneeling). After five claps, the five members of the group have an erect posture, arms wide.

Act 2. The members of the group are crawling on the floor, opening and closing their mouths while making mastication sounds. Each crawls independently and in their own rhythm. One by one each stops opening and closing their mouths. They are listening. They slowly gather and join to form a "train" and start singing "Amazing Grace." The train travels a distance; after that it falls apart and the members resume their crawling and mastication.

Group 2.

A one-act play. Three partitions are joined to form a "V" facing the audience. Three members of the group are inside the partitions doing different things with shoes, etc. The other three members are outside the partitions ignoring what happens inside. They stare off into space. Two of them eventually unite the partitions so that what happens "behind" the partitions now remains invisible to the audience and to the three group members remaining outside. One member of the outside group sits down behind a table and starts writing on paper. The other two members of the outside group stare and inspect the partitions. They also approach the member sitting behind the table, asking and pleading him to help them investigate the partitions. The three outside group members start knocking on the partitions and start throwing pieces of papers with integrals, flow charts, and molecular shapes on them over the partitions. Crumpled paper and paper with question marks ("¿?") on them are thrown back. Once in a while, paper with significant content written on it is returned to the outside group members (e.g., "Hox A"). Knocks are also responded to, although not systematically. One of the inside group members, with a black scarf over her head, goes in and out of the partitions. After a while, the partitions open (from the inside) and we see one of the inside group members sitting down imitating puffing a cigar and playing with a remote control. Another inside group member holds a leash which is attached to the other inside group member, that holds a mirror which is shown to the audience members. We also see a little black box in the middle of the floor. The three outside group members see all this activity and stare at the audience and each other in horror. They close the partitions again.

(2) Discussion of the Plays

Group 2 on Group 1's Play. Members of group 2 guessed that group 1, in the alternative metaphor, was instantiating/incarnating a "slime mold." This seemed to involve the idea of (gene) action in terms of complex and non-aggregative interactive behavior (e.g., the whole is greater than the sum of the parts). The song "Amazing Grace" was an apt musical presentation of this concept. Some members of group 2 felt that group 1 was "cheating" by singing (as it was verbal); others felt that it was an apt incarnation that complemented the physical aspects of the play, without actual "linguistic representation." Group 2 guessed that the traditional metaphor involved the "master molecule" reading from (this part was not guessed by all) "the book of life," i.e., the genetic "code" (or rather "program," since at least one sense of code involves just the set of 64 translation rules – e.g., UUU à phenylalanine, rather than the syntactic/semantic content of the entire string of bases of a genotype). In an important sense, the two-act play of group 1 was extremely clear and concise. Their play was readily interpretable. The intended metaphor of the first play was "unfolding." There was discussion as to whether the slime mold process could or could not be represented by the "program" metaphor.

Group 1 on Group 2's Play. The one-act play of group 2 was fairly opaque to group 1 and generated a number of very divergent interpretations. I apologize for lack of clarity here, as I did not fully understand every interpretation, in part because there was not enough time for people to detail their thoughts.. One interpretation involved the idea that a bounded system was trying to make us, as the audience, reflexive about what was going on in the system and, by extension, in us. Perhaps the three outside group members were, in a sense, the audience. The audience/outside group members were trying to become reflexive about the system by formalizing it (via flow charts and integrals, for example). This interpretation was not clear about what the system was.

Most other interpretations assumed that the partitions/screens bounded off a material entity, either a cell or a nucleus, perhaps even a cell at the origins of life. The three outside group members then also represented material aspects of the cell or its larger context. For example, the seated outside group member represented DNA writing down instructions that was then given to the processes and entities going on inside the partitions. Or the inside group member weaving in and out of the screens represented a hormone sending (being a?) signal(s).

Another interpretation explicitly combined material and formal aspects, such as the seated group member being God, directing the entire play (a Theist God?).

The intended interpretation, suggested by one group 1 member, was that this was not a metaphor about materiality, but rather a metaphor about epistemology/methodology – namely development (and complexity!) as black-boxed in our theory (and practice). Development is a black-box that we are only beginning to open. One member of group 2 joked that the man behind the desk was Ernst Mayr (who, in many ways, was instrumental, historically, in black-boxing development). The intended interpretation was that the three outside group members were scientists (biologists!), two empiricists and one theoretician, who first black-boxed development and then, slowly, got interested in it. "Development" was supposed to be inside the box. But what does that mean? Just the material processes, at all levels, across all species, of individual development, or also the potential theoretical and methodological lessons that can be gleaned and harvested from an explicit examination of those processes? Question remains: How much is contained inside the black box? In many ways, it remains unclear exactly what the "black box" was meant to represent. (Black box was also, in an interesting turn, compared to Searle's Chinese Box.)

However, once the black-box was opened, the interpretation of what is seen inside the box is somewhat clear (although clarity did leave much to be desired as no member of group 1 explicitly guessed these metaphors, but that may be a consequence of lack of time): DNA/genes as a lazy cigar smoking director ordering through a remote control (metaphor was presented, among others, by Douglas Hofstadter), DNA/genes as holding something else (culture!) on a leash. Culture is then reflecting on us – we are culture and culture is inside of us too!

A comment regarding a meta-activity was made: put the play on the road and have audience probe the black box of the black box play. The play as a Rorschach test.

Clearly, the didactic outcome of group 2's play left much to be desired. Group 1 remained at a loss re. the intended interpretation of the play. Group 2 didn't have a clearly differentiated traditional and alternative metaphor. Furthermore, there was perhaps too much going on in the play! Was the complexity of this play too high? However, there does seem to be some strength in having witnessed two widely different plays – one with a clear, one with an unclear, interpretation. There was a lot to compare.

(3) Cor van der Weele's Presentation and Subsequent General Discussion

Cor van der Weele presented some thoughts on metaphor. She started by mentioning the important role metaphors play in scientific language (as Evelyn Fox Keller has discussed at length). She mentioned some replies she received when she asked around for alternative metaphors of development. For example, Scott Gilbert suggested a jazz orchestra or a family making decisions, but Fred Nijhout said something like "let's not get involved with metaphors, let's just do the research." This is a fairly traditional response from a scientist.

She mentioned many metaphors related to DNA: flexible or rigid recipe, blueprint, or program; memory of the cell, organism, or species (proteins as forgetful?); the attic or the basement of the cell, organism, or species; immigrant, junk, renegade, selfish, altruistic, immortal, mortal, or diseased. Metaphors of DNA interaction include policing genes and parliament of genes. The metaphors are evolving: DNA tends to become less powerful and well organized, more passive, chaotic and vulnerable.

She also mentioned work suggesting that metaphorical thought has its origin in synaesthesia.

She discussed work by Celeste Condit showing how interpretations of metaphors are polyvalent. For example, consider the metaphors of genes as recipes or blueprints, respectively. Depending on the context in which these metaphors are imagined, each can conjure an image of flexibility or rigidity.

She mentioned two conceptual approaches to metaphors:

1. Metaphor coming out of the body and out of phenomenal experience (e.g., Lakoff and Johnston; "warmth as intimacy"). That is, our experience provides the grounds and the basis for our metaphors. Here, metaphor is deep and hidden.

2. Metaphor constructed out of social artifacts, assumptions, beliefs, and dynamics. E.g., Condit and EF Keller; "Frankenstein monsters." Metaphor on the "surface of language" (shallow?).

General discussion was general and non-linear. Some took issue with vdW description of the phenomenal tradition as deep. Deep and shallow were considered orthogonal to bodily vs. cultural origins of metaphor. This distinction was also considered orthogonal to cause (which can, in some contexts, as "biological") and effect. Thus, a rich typology regarding metaphor could be constructed.

The program metaphor was discussed as an example of polyvalent interpretation.

Furthermore, dictionary and thesaurus are very different and play different functions. Perhaps the function and structure of metaphor is better captured in a thesaurus than in a dictionary.

What exactly is a metaphor? How does it relate to simile and analogy? Unclear.

Perhaps, it was suggested, metaphor is an invitation to look at something as something else. (e.g., the distinction between "seeing" and "seeing as" was mentioned; the latter requires a rich theoretical structure, which can have, but need not have, a whole slew of relations of analogy, which include metaphors.) Thus, metaphor is a way to invite us to develop new cognitive frameworks. In addition, metaphor also maintains "traditional" cognitive frameworks.