19.12.20 Order and disorder, Douglas
'Things may come to be “out of place” by being anomalous or ambiguous. Douglas defines an anomaly as any “element which does not fit a given set or series,” while ambiguity is a characteristic of something capable of two interpretations (idem: 47). In Douglas’ view, the categorization and organization (of objects, animals, senses, encounters, etc.) implicit in perception is, above all, an act of sense-making. Life, she suggests, is “inherently untidy” (idem: 5), and the separation and demarcation of experience into categories is an effort to “impose system” and make sense of the world (idem). Things that are anomalous or ambiguous are seen as dirty because they resist this kind of classification by not easily “fitting” into established categories. This directly threatens the perceptual (and inherently social) structure, and, as a consequence, anomalous and ambiguous things are often seen as disgusting, disruptive, and dangerous. However, these are not the only possible reactions; there is a “whole gradient on which laughter, revulsion and shock belong at different points and intensities” according to the type of transgression (idem: 47). What is consistent is that anomaly and ambiguity demand at least some kind of reaction because, as Douglas states, when we encounter them the underlying feeling is that “a system of values […] has been violated” (Douglas 1968: 50).
In order to counter the discomfort inherent in such transgressions, they must in the first place be limited, and, when they do occur, “fixed,” leaving dirt tidied up and dissonance reduced. Processes to achieve these ends are what Douglas refers to as our “pollution behavior,” and they are deliberate, creative acts. Eliminating dirt, she states, “is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to reorganize the environment” (Douglas 1966: 2), and the aim of pollution behavior is to ensure “that the order in external physical events conforms to the structure of ideas” (Douglas 1968: 53). One of the principal ways in which this is achieved is through the exaggeration of difference. Douglas states that it is only by exaggerating the difference between “within and without, above and below, male and female, with and against” that a “semblance of order is created” (1966: 4), as exaggeration sharpens the boundaries between categories which may otherwise be hazy or indistinct.
Once transgressions have occurred, they can be dealt with in a number of ways. Breaches of pollution rules may be “punished by political decree, sometimes by attack on the transgressor, and sometimes by grave or trivial sanctions” (Douglas 1968: 53), and additionally the simple act of labelling something “dirt” plays an important role, as the inherent negativity of the term serves to publicly condemn the contradiction or confusion of cherished classifications that has caused it. This has the effect of clearly outlining what is expected and acceptable and what is not. As Douglas writes: “when something is classified firmly as anomalous [or ambiguous], the outline of the set of which it is not a member is clarified” (Douglas 1966: 47). In other words, labelling something “out of place” (and therefore dirty) simultaneously establishes what would be “in place” (and therefore clean). In Douglas’ example of shoes on the dining table, for instance, calling the situation dirty reinforces the idea that, usually, shoes are not placed on the dining table, and it is hoped that the act of labelling such behavior “dirty” will cause the offender to recognize the out-of-place-ness of their action and “fix” the transgression by revising the placement of the shoes.
Of course, what is “out of place” to one person may not necessarily be so to another. Dirt exists only “in the eye of the beholder” (Douglas 1996: 2), and what is classified as dirt varies between groups and individuals. Although dirt can be consistently defined as “that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained” (Douglas 1968: 50), what constitutes a “pattern” or what is considered a desirable pattern has no such consistency. Whereas the “sorting” of perception (and experience) into categories is a human universal, their boundaries are entirely a matter of culture. Indeed, pollution behaviors form a central part of what we mean when we speak of “culture,” as dirt, by definition, invokes the wider structure of which it is not a part. Additionally, due to their important role in reinforcing and maintaining the social order (i.e. outlining what is and isn’t acceptable behavior), pollution rules take on a deeply symbolic role, and dirt, according to Douglas, carries a “symbolic load” (Douglas 1996: 4). The labels “clean” and “dirty” can be mapped on to more overtly moral ones such as “pure/impure” and “sacred/profane,” and pollution beliefs are used “in a dialogue of claims and counter-claims to status” (idem: 3). To be “clean” is to be good, to agree to cherished classifications, and to uphold the social order and accepted ways of being. By contrast, to be “dirty” is to be bad, to disregard convention, to confuse or ignore classifications and have different and unacceptable ways of being. Dirt, far more than just “matter out of place,” is indicative of an entire moral system.
In order to counter the discomfort inherent in such transgressions, they must in the first place be limited, and, when they do occur, “fixed,” leaving dirt tidied up and dissonance reduced. Processes to achieve these ends are what Douglas refers to as our “pollution behavior,” and they are deliberate, creative acts. Eliminating dirt, she states, “is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to reorganize the environment” (Douglas 1966: 2), and the aim of pollution behavior is to ensure “that the order in external physical events conforms to the structure of ideas” (Douglas 1968: 53). One of the principal ways in which this is achieved is through the exaggeration of difference. Douglas states that it is only by exaggerating the difference between “within and without, above and below, male and female, with and against” that a “semblance of order is created” (1966: 4), as exaggeration sharpens the boundaries between categories which may otherwise be hazy or indistinct.
Once transgressions have occurred, they can be dealt with in a number of ways. Breaches of pollution rules may be “punished by political decree, sometimes by attack on the transgressor, and sometimes by grave or trivial sanctions” (Douglas 1968: 53), and additionally the simple act of labelling something “dirt” plays an important role, as the inherent negativity of the term serves to publicly condemn the contradiction or confusion of cherished classifications that has caused it. This has the effect of clearly outlining what is expected and acceptable and what is not. As Douglas writes: “when something is classified firmly as anomalous [or ambiguous], the outline of the set of which it is not a member is clarified” (Douglas 1966: 47). In other words, labelling something “out of place” (and therefore dirty) simultaneously establishes what would be “in place” (and therefore clean). In Douglas’ example of shoes on the dining table, for instance, calling the situation dirty reinforces the idea that, usually, shoes are not placed on the dining table, and it is hoped that the act of labelling such behavior “dirty” will cause the offender to recognize the out-of-place-ness of their action and “fix” the transgression by revising the placement of the shoes.
Of course, what is “out of place” to one person may not necessarily be so to another. Dirt exists only “in the eye of the beholder” (Douglas 1996: 2), and what is classified as dirt varies between groups and individuals. Although dirt can be consistently defined as “that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained” (Douglas 1968: 50), what constitutes a “pattern” or what is considered a desirable pattern has no such consistency. Whereas the “sorting” of perception (and experience) into categories is a human universal, their boundaries are entirely a matter of culture. Indeed, pollution behaviors form a central part of what we mean when we speak of “culture,” as dirt, by definition, invokes the wider structure of which it is not a part. Additionally, due to their important role in reinforcing and maintaining the social order (i.e. outlining what is and isn’t acceptable behavior), pollution rules take on a deeply symbolic role, and dirt, according to Douglas, carries a “symbolic load” (Douglas 1996: 4). The labels “clean” and “dirty” can be mapped on to more overtly moral ones such as “pure/impure” and “sacred/profane,” and pollution beliefs are used “in a dialogue of claims and counter-claims to status” (idem: 3). To be “clean” is to be good, to agree to cherished classifications, and to uphold the social order and accepted ways of being. By contrast, to be “dirty” is to be bad, to disregard convention, to confuse or ignore classifications and have different and unacceptable ways of being. Dirt, far more than just “matter out of place,” is indicative of an entire moral system.
My reflections on order/disorder:
Things that are anomalous and ambiguous may be seen to be out of place. Douglas suggests that systems, categorisation and place setting are about making sense of things.
Things that are anomalous or ambiguous can provoke a range of conflicting responses:
'Things that are anomalous or ambiguous are seen as dirty because they resist this kind of classification by not easily “fitting” into established categories. This directly threatens the perceptual (and inherently social) structure, and, as a consequence, anomalous and ambiguous things are often seen as disgusting, disruptive, and dangerous. However, these are not the only possible reactions; there is a “whole gradient on which laughter, revulsion and shock belong at different points and intensities” according to the type of transgression (idem: 47). What is consistent is that anomaly and ambiguity demand at least some kind of reaction because, as Douglas states, when we encounter them the underlying feeling is that “a system of values […] has been violated” (Douglas 1968: 50).
Boundaries are about order, blurred boundaries bring discomfort:
'In order to counter the discomfort inherent in such transgressions, they must in the first place be limited, and, when they do occur, “fixed,” leaving dirt tidied up and dissonance reduced. Processes to achieve these ends are what Douglas refers to as our “pollution behavior,” and they are deliberate, creative acts. Eliminating dirt, she states, “is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to reorganize the environment” (Douglas 1966: 2), and the aim of pollution behavior is to ensure “that the order in external physical events conforms to the structure of ideas” (Douglas 1968: 53). One of the principal ways in which this is achieved is through the exaggeration of difference. Douglas states that it is only by exaggerating the difference between “within and without, above and below, male and female, with and against” that a “semblance of order is created” (1966: 4), as exaggeration sharpens the boundaries between categories which may otherwise be hazy or indistinct.'
It's an individual thing:
'what is “out of place” to one person may not necessarily be so to another.' ...which is presumably why different people have different responses to my work
'Clean' and 'dirty' have a moral load:
'To be “clean” is to be good, to agree to cherished classifications, and to uphold the social order and accepted ways of being. By contrast, to be “dirty” is to be bad, to disregard convention, to confuse or ignore classifications and have different and unacceptable ways of being. Dirt, far more than just “matter out of place,” is indicative of an entire moral system.
It's complex but worth investigating further....
Things that are anomalous and ambiguous may be seen to be out of place. Douglas suggests that systems, categorisation and place setting are about making sense of things.
Things that are anomalous or ambiguous can provoke a range of conflicting responses:
'Things that are anomalous or ambiguous are seen as dirty because they resist this kind of classification by not easily “fitting” into established categories. This directly threatens the perceptual (and inherently social) structure, and, as a consequence, anomalous and ambiguous things are often seen as disgusting, disruptive, and dangerous. However, these are not the only possible reactions; there is a “whole gradient on which laughter, revulsion and shock belong at different points and intensities” according to the type of transgression (idem: 47). What is consistent is that anomaly and ambiguity demand at least some kind of reaction because, as Douglas states, when we encounter them the underlying feeling is that “a system of values […] has been violated” (Douglas 1968: 50).
Boundaries are about order, blurred boundaries bring discomfort:
'In order to counter the discomfort inherent in such transgressions, they must in the first place be limited, and, when they do occur, “fixed,” leaving dirt tidied up and dissonance reduced. Processes to achieve these ends are what Douglas refers to as our “pollution behavior,” and they are deliberate, creative acts. Eliminating dirt, she states, “is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to reorganize the environment” (Douglas 1966: 2), and the aim of pollution behavior is to ensure “that the order in external physical events conforms to the structure of ideas” (Douglas 1968: 53). One of the principal ways in which this is achieved is through the exaggeration of difference. Douglas states that it is only by exaggerating the difference between “within and without, above and below, male and female, with and against” that a “semblance of order is created” (1966: 4), as exaggeration sharpens the boundaries between categories which may otherwise be hazy or indistinct.'
It's an individual thing:
'what is “out of place” to one person may not necessarily be so to another.' ...which is presumably why different people have different responses to my work
'Clean' and 'dirty' have a moral load:
'To be “clean” is to be good, to agree to cherished classifications, and to uphold the social order and accepted ways of being. By contrast, to be “dirty” is to be bad, to disregard convention, to confuse or ignore classifications and have different and unacceptable ways of being. Dirt, far more than just “matter out of place,” is indicative of an entire moral system.
It's complex but worth investigating further....
Pickering, H. and Rice, T. (2017) ‘Noise as “sound out of place”: investigating the links between Mary Douglas’ work on dirt and sound studies research‘, Journal of Sonic Studies, 14 Available at: https://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/374514/374521/0/0 (Accessed: 19 December 2020)
