May 05, 2009 16:06
that the self- and other-constituting interlocutors need not be individuals with whom
one is immediately engaged or mediately engaged, as, for example, when reading, but
they may also be figures of the imagination or memory, edging on the shadowy world
of the phantasm. (In many cultures memory and imagination are conceptually
conflated.) We may conceive of these two categories of interlocutors in synchronic and
diachronic terms or, if you prefer, in terms of a horizontal and vertical axis whose intersection
is the experiential moment. Depending on the situation in which one finds
oneself - the way it is framed - the immediate or mediate interlocutors or the imagined
or remembered ones may be dominant, but, I suggest, the latent interlocutors are never
wholly absent or without influence on interlocution. How the focalization on one interlocutory
type or another relates to the constitution and evaluation of scene and reality
has to be determined case by case. p 399 Crapanzano, Anthropological Theory, "The Scene: Shadowing the real".
кто знает какие примеры?