# created ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.cday ASC ``` # modified ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.mday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.mday ASC ``` --- # [[diary and thoughts]] #thought #diary --- # Notes ### Part 1: Bird's Eye View of the Class Structure Here is the narrative arc of the class, which mirrors the [[argumentative structure]] of Chapter 5. Think of it as a journey from "Observation" to "Theory," then "Conflict," and finally "Refinement." Act I: The Messy Reality (Phenomenology) We begin (Slides 3–15) by looking at [[material culture]] as it actually appears to us, before applying any heavy theory. The text calls this the "Phenomenology." [[The goal]] here is to establish the data points that any good theory must explain. We see that [[the relationship between]] an object’s [[physical structure]] and its function is loose—spoons can be made of anything (Multiple Realizability) and used for anything (Multiple Utilizability). Crucially, we introduce [[the concept]] of Malfunction (p. 138). This is [[the pivot]] point for the whole lecture. If a theory cannot explain how a broken spoon is still a spoon, the theory fails. Act II: The Biological Toolkit (Theories) Having established the messiness of culture, we turn to philosophy of biology (Slides 16–24) to find tools to clean it up. We introduce two rival definitions of function. Larry Wright and Ruth Millikan represent the "History" view ([[Proper Function]])—a thing’s function is defined by what its ancestors did successfully. Robert Cummins represents the "System" view ([[System Function]])—a thing’s function is just what it is capable of doing right now. The text sets these up as competitors to show the tension between "History" (Why it is there) and "Capacity" (How it works). Act III: The Pluralist Resolution (Synthesis) In the middle of the class (Slides 25–29), we ask: "Who is right?" The text argues that both are necessary (Pluralism). We prove this by returning to [[the problem]] of Malfunction (from Act I). We show that Cummins’s "System" view cannot explain broken items (because they lack capacity), so we need Millikan’s "History" view to account for them. Conversely, we need Cummins to explain innovation (like using a spoon as a drum). This section aligns with the "What Price Unification?" section of the text (p. 144), concluding that [[material culture]] requires a dual approach. Act IV: The Evolutionary Critique (The Twist) Finally (Slides 30–43), we try to map the Biological "History" view onto Culture, and it breaks. This is the most challenging part. We usually assume "Cultural History" works like "Natural Selection," or that it works via "Intelligent Design." The text attacks both assumptions. It argues Natural Selection is too strict (cultures often lack competition/variation, p. 155), and Intelligent Design (Neo-teleology) is a myth because even "designed" objects like watches rely on a blind history of technology (p. 157). We end with David Buller’s solution: defining function not by "Selection," but by a history of "Usefulness" and "Reproduction." --- ### Part 2: Detailed [[Speaker Notes]] Here are the detailed notes for the 45-[[slide deck]], including long block quotes with page numbers from the text. #### Slide 1: [[Title Slide]] Speaker Notes: Welcome to Part II of our course on the Philosophy of Material Culture. In Part I, we focused on the agent—the person making and using things, focusing on action theory and improvisation. Today, we shift our perspective to the object. We are asking: What does it mean for an artifact to have a "function"? Is the function of a spoon a physical fact about the spoon, or is it a historical fact about its makers? Today we cover Chapter 5, "Proper Function and System Function." #### Slide 2: Class Agenda Speaker Notes: We have four movements today. 1. Phenomenology: We start with observation. How do artifacts actually behave? We will look at how they change uses and how they break. 2. Biological Theories: We will borrow the heavy machinery of logic from the philosophy of biology to define our terms. 3. The Argument for Pluralism: We will ask if these theories are mutually exclusive, or if—as the text argues—we need both to make sense of the world. 4. Evolutionary Critiques: Finally, we will critique the analogy between biological evolution and cultural evolution. --- ### SECTION I: PHENOMENOLOGY OF FUNCTION #### Slide 3: Section Header (Phenomenology) Speaker Notes: The text begins with a "Prelude: The Phenomenology of Function" (p. 135). Phenomenology here simply means describing the phenomena as they appear to us, before we try to explain them theoretically. We need to agree on what the facts are before we build a theory to explain them. #### Slide 4: Five Central Phenomena Speaker Notes: The text identifies five distinct phenomena that any adequate theory of material culture must explain. If our final definition of "function" leaves any of these out, it is incomplete. They are: 1) Multiple Realizability, 2) Multiple Utilizability, 3) Reproduction, 4) Malfunction, and 5) Phantom Function. #### Slide 5: Structure vs. Function Speaker Notes: The core relationship in material culture is between Structure (the physical properties of the object) and Function (what it does). The text argues this relationship is one of "constraint" rather than "determination." - Constraint: Physics limits what you can do. You cannot make a knife out of soup. - Underdetermination: However, physics leaves options open. A knife can be steel, obsidian, or ceramic. - Quote: > "Function does constrain structure, then, but does not determine it. This underdetermination makes multiple realizability possible... Structure does constrain the possible uses of an item—spoons are only marginally useful as weapons, for instance, and are no good at all as umbrellas or towels. But because structure underdetermines function, we can use items of material culture for an indefinite number of purposes." (p. 136) #### Slide 6: Visualizing the Relation (Infographic Placeholder) Speaker Notes: (Use this slide to illustrate the Many-to-Many mapping). We often think "One Tool = One Job." The text argues it is actually a web. The function "To Eat" maps to many physical structures (wood, metal). The structure "Metal Spoon" maps to many functions (eating, prying, music). This flexibility is why material culture is so adaptive. #### Slide 7: Multiple Realizability Detail Speaker Notes: Multiple Realizability is the idea that a single function can be instantiated in diverse materials. This seems obvious, but it has a deep philosophical implication: "Function" cannot be identified with "Material Structure." If a spoon can be wood OR metal, then "Spoon-ness" is not a material property like "atomic weight." - Quote: > "Historically, besides just about any metal you care to mention, they have also been made from wood, shell, horn, bone, pottery, porcelain, and more recently plastic and silicon. Some materials are not suitable, of course. You do not hear of spoons made of water or cotton batting." (p. 135-136) #### Slide 8: Multiple Utilizability Detail Speaker Notes: This is the inverse. Just as one function can have many shapes, one shape can have many uses. The text distinguishes between the designed function and the innovative function. - Quote: > "Any item of material culture can ordinarily be used for a variety of different functions, and in particular for functions it was not designed to serve. For example, ordinary tablespoons can be used as musical instruments, to open cocoa tins, transplant seedlings, measure cooking ingredients, hold down papers, help prevent a glass from breaking when boiling water or hot tea is poured into it, and so on." (p. 136) #### Slide 9: The Maintenance-Recycling Continuum Speaker Notes: Artifacts do not persist on their own; they degrade. Their persistence is a result of human activity. The text introduces the "Maintenance-Recycling Continuum" (p. 137) to describe how we intervene to keep structure and function aligned. #### Slide 10: Maintenance Speaker Notes: At one end of the spectrum is Maintenance. Here, the structure is essentially sound, but needs minor intervention to continue functioning. - Quote: > "Most items of material culture must be maintained in order to continue to perform their functions effectively. Sometimes, the need for maintenance is a direct result of the exercise of the function—spoons become encrusted with food during use and must be washed, for instance." (p. 137) #### Slide 11: Repair & Rebuilding Speaker Notes: Moving along the continuum, we hit Repair. Here, the structure has actually failed (malfunctioned), and we intervene to restore it. - Quote: > "Most items of material culture are also subject to damage that calls for repair. Here again, damage is sometimes the result of normal functioning, as when socks get holes in the toes or heels; and sometimes the result of misuse or accidents, as when a spoon is bent while being used to pry up floor tiles." (p. 137) #### Slide 12: Recycling Speaker Notes: At the far end is Recycling. Here, we abandon the original function entirely. - Quote: > "At the far end of the continuum is recycling... One type of recycling makes slight modifications to the structure in order to suit it for a different function... For example, the bottoms can be cut off soft drink bottles to make cloches for young lettuce plants... And, finally, there is what we usually think of as recycling—breaking the structure down so thoroughly that it is returned to the raw material state." (p. 137-138) #### Slide 13: Visualizing the Continuum (Infographic Placeholder) Speaker Notes: (Use this to visualize the quote from p. 137). The key insight here is that "Function" is dynamic. Through recycling, the function of the material persists (the plastic), but the function of the artifact (the bottle) is terminated. #### Slide 14: Malfunction Speaker Notes: This is perhaps the most critical concept for the later theoretical debate. A malfunction is a specific philosophical state: The object should work, but doesn't. - Quote: > "A malfunction is not so much something going wrong with the function itself, but with the structure that is supposed to subserve the function. Thus a soup spoon malfunctions if its handle is bent so badly it cannot be used to transfer soup from bowl to mouth... or if an inappropriate choice of material means that the heat of the soup melts the spoon." (p. 138) #### Slide 15: Phantom Function Speaker Notes: Phantom Function is a fascinating edge case. It occurs when a society reproduces an object for a function it never had the capacity to perform. - Quote: > "This occurs when a type of item is regularly reproduced to serve a specific function, but no exemplar of it has ever been structurally capable of performing that function. A mundane case is bug zappers... A less mundane case is fengshui mirrors, which are supposed to deflect evil spirits and bad qi... no fengshui mirror ever has—or ever could—carry out this function." (p. 138) --- ### SECTION II: BIOLOGICAL THEORIES #### Slide 16: Section Header (Bio Theories) Speaker Notes: We move now to Section 2 of the text: "Biological Function: Two Theories" (p. 139). We are turning to biology because the debate over "what is a function" was largely settled there in the 1970s and 80s. #### Slide 17: The Central Problem Speaker Notes: The problem is distinguishing "Function" from "Accident." The classic example is the heart. - Quote: > "The initial problem for function theory was that a thing might engage in all sorts of performances, many of which have nothing to do with its function, intuitively gauged. For example, the heart both circulates blood and makes a characteristic noise." (p. 139) - Why is "pumping" the function and "noise" just an accident? Physical observation alone cannot tell us. #### Slide 18: Wright's Analysis Speaker Notes: Larry Wright proposed an "Etiological" (historical) solution in 1973. He linked function to the reason the object exists. - Quote: > "Larry Wright (1973) addresses this by connecting functions to performances which account for why the thing is there in the first place... The difficulty, in short, is that Wright’s formulation ‘X is there because it does Y’ does not necessarily hold." (p. 139-140) #### Slide 19: Wright's Implications Speaker Notes: Wright's theory is Normative. It tells us what the heart should do based on why it was selected. - Quote: > "Intuitively, for Wright, that the heart makes noise is accidental, a mere by-product of its real function, which is pumping blood. Adverting to the selection history of hearts confirms this intuition." (p. 141) #### Slide 20: Cummins's Critique Speaker Notes: Robert Cummins challenged Wright by pointing out that "History" and "Function" can split apart. He argues that Wright confuses evolution with physiological analysis. - Quote: > "[Cummins] pointed out that the current performance of a biological organ does not necessarily have anything to do with the evolutionary reasons why it is there... 'Plausible as this sounds, it involves a subtle yet fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.'" (p. 139) #### Slide 21: The Divergence Evidence Speaker Notes: Cummins uses biological examples (like the contractile vacuole or penguin wing) to show this divergence. The text adds cultural examples. - Quote: > "The wings of flightless birds, which may be used (e.g., by penguins) for swimming... This phenomenon is even more common in material culture, where things designed for one function are frequently used for something else. Consider the old tire that is now a swing... The tire that is now a swing is almost certain to be treadless, and the penguin’s wings are not capable of lifting it off the ground. Such cases show that current capacity/disposition and selection history are, in principle, divergent." (p. 140) #### Slide 22: System Function Definition Speaker Notes: Cummins proposes System Function: a Non-Normative, mechanical explanation. It looks at the system right now. - Quote: > "Functional analysis in biology is essentially similar. The biologically significant capacities of an entire organism are explained by analyzing the organism into a number of ‘systems’... The capacities of the components of the system are, according to Cummins, precisely what we want to call the functions of those components—the functional roles they play within the system as a whole." (p. 140) #### Slide 23: Millikan's Proper Function Speaker Notes: Ruth Millikan defends the historical view, renaming it Proper Function. This is the definition that allows for "Normativity" (Right vs. Wrong use). - Quote: > "So whether or not it is itself capable of serving any of these functions, every organ or system is associated with a set of functions that are biologically ‘proper’ to it, functions that have helped account for the survival and proliferation of its ancestors. I call these functions ‘proper functions’ of the organ or system." (p. 142) #### Slide 24: Comparison Matrix Speaker Notes: (Summary Slide). The key takeaway here is the distinction the text draws on p. 143: - Proper Function (Millikan) is Normative (what it is supposed to do). - System Function (Cummins) is Non-Normative (what it can do). - Quote: > "Thus, a crucial difference is that proper function is normative in a special sense that is lacking in system function... Millikan employs the capitalized term ‘Normal’ to signify this special sense of normativity. I shall follow this convention and refer to proper function as Normative and system function as non-Normative." (p. 143) --- ### SECTION III: THE ARGUMENT FOR PLURALISM #### Slide 26: The Subsumption Question Speaker Notes: We move to Section 3: "What Price Unification?" (p. 144). Philosophers love simplicity, so many tried to combine these theories—usually by arguing that Proper Function is just a specific type of System Function. The text argues this fails. - Quote: > "How are proper function and system function related to each other?... The other main possibility... is that neither concept is reducible to the other, but that, on the contrary, both are needed to cover all the phenomena of function." (p. 135) #### Slide 27: The Problem of Malfunction Speaker Notes: The argument for Pluralism rests on Malfunction. System Function relies on current capacity. If something is broken, it has no capacity. Therefore, under System Function, a blind eye has no function at all. It is just a lump of tissue. To call it a "malfunctioning eye," we must look at history (Proper Function). - Quote: > "Consider someone born blind. Her eyes simply never have the capacity to see, and so on a Cummins-style analysis... they do not have a function. Millikan’s point is that it would be useful for us to have a notion of function that would enable us to say that they do have a function, but are unable to perform it. And it is only when we let go of current capacity/disposition as the determining criterion of function that we are able to do this." (p. 143) #### Slide 28: Visualizing Pluralism (Infographic Placeholder) Speaker Notes: (Use the matrix to visualize p. 146). The text explicitly lists items that fall into one category but not the other. - Quote: > "Material culture items with proper functions but no corresponding system functions are those that are unable to perform their proper function... Items with system functions but no corresponding proper functions are legion in material culture because people constantly co-opt proper-functional items for system-functional uses." (p. 146) #### Slide 29: Social Normativity Speaker Notes: The text argues that Pluralism isn't just a theoretical necessity; it's a social reality. We treat "Proper" and "System" uses differently in daily life. - Quote: > "Beer is supposed to be a potable liquid... So, if you cannot drink it because it tastes awful... you have a legitimate complaint and can demand your money back. On the other hand, if you use the beer as slug bait... and your local slugs are not attracted to it... you cannot reasonably demand your money back." (p. 151) --- ### SECTION IV: CRITIQUE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY ANALOGY #### Slide 31: The Translation Challenge Speaker Notes: We move to the final section: "Proper Function and System Function in Material Culture" (p. 152). We have established we need Proper Function (History). In biology, History = Natural Selection. Can we just paste "Natural Selection" onto "Material Culture"? The text says no. #### Slide 32: Critique 1: Natural Selection Speaker Notes: Natural Selection works by competition between variants. If there is no variation, there is no selection. - Quote: > "Karen Neander (1991b) suggests that one problem... is that there may be only one way—or only one way apparent to the agents involved—to realize a given function... Consider two hypothetical, prehistoric cultures with flaked stone knives. In one culture, knives have never been made of anything but stone... Given the strict biological definition of selection, we are forced to say that the flint knives in the first culture do not have a proper function." (p. 155) #### Slide 33: Critique 2: Cultural Drift Speaker Notes: In biology, "Drift" is when an accident wipes out a fit animal. In culture, products disappear for non-functional reasons (marketing, bad management). If function depends on "Selection," these products lose their function status. - Quote: > "When a variation does disappear, the reasons for its disappearance do not necessarily have anything to do with how well it fulfilled its erstwhile function. Perhaps it actually worked better than all the competing variations, but the company was poorly managed... Let us call this phenomenon cultural drift." (p. 155) #### Slide 34: Neo-Teleology Intro Speaker Notes: If Natural Selection fails, maybe we should look at Intelligent Design (Neo-teleology). This is the view that artifacts have functions because makers intended them to. - Quote: > "Cummins (2002) has re-entered the function theory fray with a much more fundamental critique... The target of Cummins’s argument is a widely held view he calls neo-teleology... The most reasonable response is to abandon selection as a central concept in a theory of proper function." (p. 156, 158) #### Slide 35: The Watchmaker Fallacy Speaker Notes: The text uses the famous "Watchmaker" analogy to argue against Neo-teleology. Paley argued a watch implies a designer. The text argues a watch implies a history of technology that the designer did not create. - Quote: > "Positing an intelligent agent with an understanding of the proper function of a watch... only just begins to explain the existence of the watch... An agent capable of designing or making a watch is not even remotely conceivable without the long history of the underlying technologies... since no human being, however intelligent, could possibly have invented such a thing utterly from scratch." (p. 157) #### Slide 36: Visualizing the Genealogy (Infographic Placeholder) Speaker Notes: (Visualize the tech stack). The point is that the "Watchmaker" is not a god creating from nothing. He is standing on a pyramid of glassmaking, metallurgy, and mechanics that evolved over centuries. - Quote: > "Thus, the existence of watches is not explained by appeal to watchmakers, but only by appeal to the history of technologies and techniques on which watchmakers are utterly dependent." (p. 157-158) #### Slide 37: The "Tech Stack" Reality Speaker Notes: The crucial point is that the ancestors of the watch (glass, metal) were not selected for the watch. The history is insensitive to the final function. - Quote: > "It is certain that early glassmakers and metallurgists were not aiming at watches... So an analogue of Cummins’s argument against neo-teleology goes through for the building of items of material culture." (p. 157, 158) #### Slide 38: Buller's Solution Intro Speaker Notes: We have rejected Natural Selection (too strict) and Intelligent Design (too historically blind). We turn to David Buller for a solution. - Quote: > "We may look for inspiration to a non-selectionist account of biological proper function proposed by David Buller... Like the selectionist accounts, this non-selectionist account appeals to the history of reproduction of a trait. But it grounds that history in contributions to fitness, not in the stricter condition of selection." (p. 158) #### Slide 39: Buller's Definition Speaker Notes: Here is the proposed definition for Material Culture. It relies on "Usefulness" rather than "Fitness." - Quote: > "A current token of an item of material culture has the proper function of producing an effect of a given type just in case producing this effect contributed to the usefulness of past tokens of this type of item, and therefore to the reproduction of such items." (p. 159) #### Slide 40: Problems with Reproduction Speaker Notes: However, even this definition has issues. Biological reproduction is distinct from Cultural reproduction. - Quote: > "Reproduction in material culture is not absolutely dependent on the survival of individual items in the way that reproduction in biology typically is... You can start mixing up a new batch of brownies before the first one is out of the oven... The underlying difference that prevents analogies from taking hold here is the difference between reproducing and being reproduced." (p. 159) #### Slide 41: Fitness vs. Usefulness Speaker Notes: Finally, the text notes that "Usefulness" is a vague concept compared to biological "Fitness." - Quote: > "Paul Griffiths (1993, 419–20) says fitness in material culture is a vaguer notion than in biology... Griffiths (1993) is sensitive to this, since he immediately connects the propensity of an item to be reproduced to its intended use... This is promising. Items of material culture are made to be used, and whether or not they continue to be reproduced does seem to depend in some way on whether they have, in fact, been useful." (p. 159) #### Slide 42: Summary of Critiques Speaker Notes: (Summary of the Evolutionary Argument). We have moved from a naive "Cultural Selection" view to a nuanced "History of Usefulness" view. We have discarded the idea that cultural artifacts must compete to have functions, and we have discarded the idea that they are purely the result of isolated intelligent design. #### Slide 43: Final Discussion Speaker Notes: We end on the problem of Intention. If "Usefulness" drives reproduction, does the maker's intended use matter? Or only the actual usefulness? - Quote: > "But now we will have to address it with regard to usefulness... what if the real usefulness of a type of item is not the use intended for it by its makers...? As writers from Marx to Foucault have pointed out, the uses of material culture are not necessarily transparent to the human agents involved." (p. 160) #### Slide 44: Next Week Speaker Notes: This leads us directly to Chapter 6. Next week, we will tackle the role of the creator's mind and the problem of "Centralized Control." Please read the assigned pages. #### Slide 45: References Speaker Notes: Sources for today include Cummins (1975), Millikan (1984), Wright (1973), and of course, the Preston text. Thank you.