The core of experience chapter 9

 

Rethinking intertextuality: A Reconstrutive análisis

©By  Abdel Hernandez san Juan

   Written in English and translated to English 

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

   Inside the several issues we receibed already discussed from the tradition of semiotic, the one less justified scientifically is the issue of intertextuality. 

   While semiotic as science is higly based in pragmaticism as well as in the philosophy of language and phenomenology, intertextuality, which started to be introduced in semiotic thanks to the work of kristeva to who the first use of the term is attributed, source and arised from the more philological side of literary criticism and as such born associated with not always to well defined, imprecised and polisemic notions such as dialogicity in the theory of novel and fiction. 

   As several other literary criticism notions, sometimes difussed as an specialized form of the so-called philological studies of the literary fountains, another times as an specific modality of the studies of literary gneres, the concept started to be used apparently to identify new things among areas of literary criticism already in existent and considered from philology as traditionals.

   My perspective I will discuss in this paper takes a lot of distance to the well know forms by which intertextuality as a concept is founded in the work of fiction and its uses acoording to notions such as the subject of enuntiation and subject of the enuntiatedm –a subject considered inside language sentences as diferent to the author subject—and the susposed to be anticipated subject to whom as idealized fabulation language is oriented toward and addressed too

   The main reason to take distance from that tradition is concerned about how the work of fiction considered as model was enlarged and extended from the literary work of fiction to the general culture under without major distintions about phenomenological and ontological differences between the immediacy of culture organization and the work of fiction mimesis of fake symbolism

   Such an extension of one model –the fiction work—over the other, the social reality of culture, was based in arguments such as the dialogization of the outside without distinguishing that such an outside was nothing else than on the one hand the reader of that fiction and on the other the literacy of fiction corpus both things considered as culture.

   The purposiveness of this essay is to propose a completly different way, a new one, to retheorize and reconsider intertextuality outside of the tradition of literary criticism, as a concept to be considered methodologically with basis on alternacy, meaning an optional concept between others to work with, seen from the sociology of culture and more specifically from empirical research of fieldwork

    This effort might be considered as a new and next level of complexity after my essay the exegesis of the texts of culture

     When one revisite and read the literature in existence about intertextuality one perceibe that asking from a high science rigor intertextuality seems to be more an ideological concept than a scientific one. 

   But if we discart asking about intertextuality as to solve main scientific issues such as for example, issues of epistemology and ontology and instead, we pay attention to the possibilities of the concept in a more aesthetic sense just like for example, postmodernism as concept is usually considered, we must perceibe that there are yet several unexplored possibilities around this concept

    In fact, after all almost nothing not to say that nothing is yet discussed as an effort to retheorize the basis and potential of this concept outside literary criticism studies. 

   Considered a such, out of the work of fiction, and retheorized, not without considering the semiotic aspects of the concept included by kristeva since her first uses of the notion, several possibilities appears in the horizont to a methodological, ethical possibilities of the concept in social sciences.

   Far to understand it as a counterargument agains the structural aesthetic of praga trying to locate it as an attachment annexed to semantic in authorial works analisis, something that, sincerely, is unneed by semantique itself, or as a model pretending to be more efficient or competent in literary criticism which neither need it and under which intertextuality seems to be diluted as a subspeciality more or less related with the old ideologies of the autonomy versus non autonomy of the art work a the interest of intertextuality as concept, i am attempting and attaining to discuss it is not about author texts, not about the relation between the author, his work and the culture function as external to it, not as much about history of genres, fountains of literacy and the so on kinds of adjudifcations of intertextuality to modes of quoting or incorporating more or less the literary tradition into the author work, but all the opposite, to the studies of textual phenomenas in cultures about which nothing as an author was evolved since its source

  This concept of intertextuality, more near to the phenomenological use Derrida attributed to the concept of texere, the interview of kristeva to derrida must then be here the main reference instead of the relation kristeva-bajtin, must play certain methodological place considered as optional from methods alternancy at the sociology of culture and fieldwork within the studies of non authorial forms of cultural texts there in the general material and visual culture of non fiction phenomenas

   A form to call or rename the world external to the author text or work seen from its inside as an attachment annexed to the interpretant something unneeded by the peirce concept, a refugy in semantic explicitation as a another forms of the texts isotopies –which as eco demonstrated is there nothing as relevant as to be just one between another manys forms of the frames—or considered as a replacement of the sign at the frege and greimas graphics, the attractive posibility of intertextuality is no about what must tell us about how language is oriented to another, but all the contrary, to statement issues of the cultural universe when nothing as an author is evolved in it

  It must be atractive within the sociology of taste, for example, to the análisis of cultural reifications and so on

  All this again, however, if we understand it not as a concept derived from literary criticism on fiction, but before well as a methodological toll optional to the research on non authorial for of texts in general cultture meaning to the study of certain textual phenomenas in culture some requere a focussed and dedicated work of reconstruction

   On the one side it is indeed, from the point of view of the samnnes of the non authorial forms of texts in general culture about Reading it acoording to its inscriptions and clues, here inscription understanded not as an inscription over the page, but inscription as a memory in language or the body, the textual corpuses, something that considered in the old view of análisis of autor Works, limited intertextuality to be a hidden for of the ideology which negates autonomy to the work of art, or to the issue of the death of the autor considered as a counter ideology to the ideology of the autor

  What I am proposing here is very far to that, this is not about negating the author in author texts neithter about negating authorships to the text of authors, not about the death of the author, but about forms of text and textuality in culture that source, arises and born from the very beginning non associated with authors, such as forms of non artistic material and visual culture such as ceremonies, carnivals, parties, rituals, quoidians stuffs, artifacts from religion and so on in which nothing as an author is there in the forefront.

   It was also asociated with the kind of naif and bad psychonalisis of the artist images as unconcient in the form of for example the interpretation of the classical painting of the girt touching the pezón interpreted as a simbolism of the non solved relation between the painter and his mother or father.

  Far to that, understanded in a poslacanial sense, it must be instead, attractive if such inscriptions and clues are considered not in regard to an individual subject but to, for example, the análisis of collective forms of cutlural reification such as the análisis of mass culture recreation by the taste of kitsh decorations or by the análisis of how consume is recreated under the reinvention of taste artifacts in the modes of imageries of several kinds in massive culture, ways to conceibe for example, the dresses of the sense of elegancy by certain groups, or the ways to conceibe what is considered aristocratic under non aristocratic people versus what is considered a code of authenticity in regard to originary cultures but as recreated by chic urban modes of recreating the visual codes of aristocracy and so on

   To the analisis of how popular culture asume the aesthetic of cultural distintions under ways to aesthetic its universes acoording to televisión codes of what is considered nice or simply to read inscription under ways to reinvent visual culture in religión and several kinds of cultural groups ceremonies

   Thus in the work of textualizing the non textual we must set to work the text enlarged toward several forms of reading culture throught this kind of inscriptions and clues of the text in the text, of intertextuality by inference or inteligibilization

   The discussed above must also leads us to think on sociolinguistic archaeology, quest and search of inscribed uses of words among unconcretized multiples subjects such as the clues of arabian etimologies under spanish, amerindian phonology under spanish, spanish under english and so on, also to the reading of culture under the reading of semantical análisis of dialects and ideolects, while it must also leads us to reconsider translation as an intertextual phenomena from the moment translating evolve to set in relation a word, a sentence or a logical grammatology of a language with the corpus of another language and as such to its culture so as setting aside under instertextual relation cultural translation, cultural translation at the same time might operate beyond semantic analisis of words etimology by translating not only from one idiom to another, but going beyond langue, translating modes of comprehension, elucidation and explicitation of issues of one culture acoording to another as something empirically follow and constrained by the set of relation of texts as an intertextual procedure

  All this again is far to exclude from the original source of the concept the regards of kristeva of it to both semantique and psychoanalisis, while, however it indeed exclude the parameter of the production of the text as well as its opposite the reception of it, far to it, this is not about the relation between the configuration of a text as addressed to or toward an anticipated another subject neither about the subject of enuntiation and the subject of the enunciated, neither on the interiority of the literary text and an external reality to replaced it by the special effects as in holliwood film spectial effects a literary corpus, such a parameter work well to the kind of analisis it source to born, the analisis of author works, but result unduly to the analisis of textual forms in non autorial material and visual culture

   In fact, under author text it worked according to what derrida defined as a relation between genesis and structure, while it resulted in a kind of extradition of the structure under intertextuality and of the intrinsique relation at author works between genesis and structure with it as for the first time and with its acoording to my fundational epistemes and readed from it which define innovation and renovation as well as with it cultural reproduction

  Marxist ideology of the non autonomy of the works hidden and masked inside language, in respect to the authorial culture it consisted about displazing the author but from language and its medias itself just when the externalist ideologies of social and historical Marxist determinism were in crisis, it was a kind of expulsion of the inside to the outside but developed with the medias of the inside baipased as an inside under textual inoculation something that remember that fantastic story of cortazar of the ocuped house which showed how the characters of the story supposed to be the owners and habitants of the house, discovered themselves progresibly with less and less space inside their own house because someone whos identity they unknow were progresibly occupying their house, 

   so intertextuality at the level of author work worked as such, as the unknow phantasms of the fantasy some one who take place of your own house occupying it without knowing its identity since it is done by inocations of the texts inside but addresses to set it outside the house, in the case of the author text and medias, toward putting him as the family of cortazar story, in the streets, out of their own house.

    discovered ultimate mask of the Marxist determinism ideology of the author work non autonomy, and ultimate Marxist strategy of expropriation questioned from hard science indeed intertextuality is nothing else but a mask of the very old ideology of philological studies of the fountain and the theory of genres

    Far to explode the subject as kristeva dreamed, a concept of subject thinked from a profusión of fiction and reality, we must attempt to attain intertextuality completly outside and far to authorial works retheorizing the concept from sociology  to the direct studies of culture without the mediation of art 

   Before well, from the moment intertextuality as postmodernism is nothing else but an ideological concept its entails with the comprehension of the textual as intertextual are of interest to full the empty spaces which connect the relations between form, semantique and ideology in culture understanded around non authorial cultural formations such as in between taste and aesthetics

  By non authorial culture I understand all the forms of material and inmaterial culture unassociated with art such as imageries, decoration, dresses and clouds, consume, entertainment, tourism, authenticity, relicaries, retables, nichos, urbanism, furnitures, customs, artesanies, rites, bricollages, palimpsests

   All this forms of material and inmaterial culture considered outside the arts are forms of the texts, all text must then be considered not as quotes of one text inside others, but as mosaics of relations for both textuals forms and textualizable non textual forms. Almost all in this sense of immediacy culture are intertextually readables

  In the same sense, to the choicings of investigation, as for example research and studies around social or cultural groups acoording to one or another way leads us to sets aside of intertextual relations of several kinds, if we take as the way of research the modes a group se to make image of itself, we pay attention to one texts and not to anothers, y we set in relation to our research  the inscription one social group have about of another social group instead of its self images such as for example how a social group have interiorized the images on itself that another neibord group have, we pay attention to one kinds of texts and not to anothers and if we chouce to avoid just one perspective in favour of mixing one under the another, we must then complexise the way to inference intertextuality by to set aside the mise in relation of texts in betwen

    This is something that remember what Bourdieu said on how the interviewed tipify in anticipation acoording to the kinds of questions the kind of social source of the interviewer social, cultural and economic source so as to answering to the last one  acoording to the idea he have of that kind on interviews by inventing hi mor herself instead of answering what he or she would answers in any case

  But we must enlarge it as to be extended to any kind of interaction between the researcher and those how are susceptible to be interviewed, studied or objectify so as to taking a way instead of another according to it, so that we must set in relation not always or as much spoken, written or visual expresive forms in which the social group speaks on itself, but texts in which others before us did about the same social groups as to studied how the groups reacted and in reverse the researches to the social group so as to study the images boths groups have previously mutually inscribed on the another

  So that textual and textualized forms of culture pregiven to us such as artifacts, weaves, ceramics, body expresision,  modes of speaking or as well collections, museographies, written Works, transcriptions, are susceptible of mise of intertextual relations to further intelligibility of intertextual comprehension

   This is about how forms of materials and inmaterial cutlrue as susceptible of intertextualy intelegibility in the sense of methodological alternancies toward forth reasings as , for example, in my essay about Malinowski and levis strauss

   In that paper as introduced and proposed the question about why malinowsky when asked himself about that taking the canoa from culture and moving it to the museum must be considered as a form of mouve it out of its etnogrpahic reality, instead of thinking about in reverse using the museum eye outside of the museum meaning there in the settings of fieldwork as a way to read the canoes in situ as a forma of text or a methonimc on culture as text

   He missregarded as well as never asked himself the question about the possibility to read the same in another form if instead of imagining in his fancy taking the caone outside its reality doing the opposite as another way to read culture

  This two options are methdologically speaking alternatives and the choicing in between modes of alternancy, by moving the museum eye to the fieldwork setting is new posibility must be opened to set in relation two and even more probably three or infinity forms of texts intertextuality in culture instead of living ten years in an undiscussed drift of what Geertz defined as participant description, doing the opposite allow as to consider the rethinking of how the native inscriptions on his presence traped him with his own scriptions in a kind of intertextual etnography defined by the museum eye in fieldwork

  Or if by the contrary we leads us to certain modern urban social groups sch as for example rokers –young people who live around rock museum versus punks as neibord groups as I did under my urban research fieldwork in Berkeley –artisans and street markets hair makers..and long time ago in moscow and havana. The issue in this case is about similars but distint groups, both share a certain ceremonial sense of their Bodies languages in the city, a certain body actititud to the remains of the society, modes of dress and clouds, modes of painting and or inscribing their Bodies, kinds of visual icons of their taste preferences, while from two completle diferent perpsectives, the first ones are expresionists indetify by the feelings and emotions of their simbols and believes as authenticity, the secouds are defined by a transvangard actitude consisting about desacralizing canons, negating authentic feelings and rediming fakennes and declinings of values as obvious in the differences between their hair modes, ther cintos an pulseras, their body languages

   However, instead to set aside both groups as separated and asking as by the first time plus by plus in the mode of research questions and groups answers, i explored the devises of asking to each group what they think about what the neiboard group ussually think on the other group so as trigering as a devices effect answers on each one of themselves imposible to be obtaining by elaborating question inscribed by the relation I them, instead of I them relations I chouced you in plural and them in plural relations

   I asked rockers their perspectives on punk perspective on them, the rockers as well as on themselves, the punks and in reverse as a divise urban articulated around a meeting to pating a canvas to be exhibited from the public to a concert ocasión

   of affording each gro en vez de divagar sin rumbos en descripciones cuyas formas de participación, lo que Geertz llamaba la descripción participante, no eran sino confirmaciones de las inscripciones que los nativos tenían de lo que era dirigirse a ellos en modos previamente tipificados

  My concept of devises in fact as I conceibed and designed it play here considered as an intertextual interfase of textualized visual materials –photos, análisis of body languages and icons, etc—as minimun textual unities a metodological sense towards later and further ways of Reading re-meeting us longer with the collected material on scenic urban rituals

  If we instad work with a collected material from archives done by others before us on the same urban groups and we share relation with them with basis on such previous materials we activate from the starting point of entrances in relation or engagement, pre-inscribed meanings and senses the group have about images on themselves which are at the same time a chain of sense they have in both sense images on themselves they have as influenced by external groups ways to seen them as well as reactions they have on a part of it as external to them and as much thus calling another ways to set in relation parts and wholes

  Methonims are here major under fieldwork to the intertextual modes of explicitations and analisis under alternancy

   An infinity or countless level of bricollages and palimpsests in culture suchg as for example objects, furnitures and artifacts of cultural patrimonies related with customs and traditions are needed of intertextual comprehension as well as the analisis of inscriptions under it so that working with a unitary textual parameter result insufficient almost ever, must of this modes of culture are itself needed to textualization and as such affording its complex levels of clues and indicial meanings, intertextuality is required as it help to developed inference and intelligibility, most of the time it evolve to put in relation textual forms unrelated previously and as such constructing the text

   Fashion, for example, is a system of corporeal codes, visual and custom codes indeed intertextuals, each part or fragment cant be understanded without reading under it another texts or not considered texts yet, another codes, we cant read in visualizing the bodies of fashion and the tangible visual discourses without textualizating it as to comply beyond the merely simply present what must be read behind that fragments or methonims, to read a visual discourse of fashion among dresses, cloudts, bodies in movements, aesthetics and form, we must read under it another code that is not present in a first instance under what we see, we of course recognize such another codes as soon as seen it, but to do so we must know another social and cultural text only accessible to those who have the acervo of that codes in the tendencies of a culture

   Thus, this is not about the psychoanalisis of the subject or of the relation between the author as subject and its subjects of enuntiation and enunciated, nor abut fiction neither outside of it but before well from the point of view of the sociology of taste, on how the objectification of textual relation we stablish among a chain of text is itself intertextual, a text send us or leads us to anothers by the regards of codes under codes, of texts in culture, well considered as something we receibed as pregiven in culture well because we relates it in that form methodologically, something leads us to the axiological, semantic and ideological –while ideology is already replaced by the relation form-semantic—universe of elucidations of comprenhesion of culture textuality supposes to tastes as to social and cultural forms of valuation

   Thus, this is not then about enlarging or encresing as extending something that taking the literary discourse as pattern open the literary over the cultural acoording the corpus of literature mimesis of culture as reality, but about a perspective that renounce to intertextuality as a concept of literary criticism

  Dialogicity and intertextuality have indeed nothing in commun. 

   This is not a way to say that dialogicity is out of interest to social science, a similar resemantization of the sense of the notion is needed to be replaced far to its subordination to the novel, while at least instead to said that dialogicty from the point of view of morphe phenomenologically speaking and of the relation between morphe, eidos and noesis is epistemologically incompatible with the principles in which under that same notions intertextuality source

  Both are diferent kinds of species, one is a phelinus the another one an equinus, of is aborseos and another one carnivorous to mean it by analogues

  A text from its epistemic constitution is the contrary of a dialogue, a text start by inscription, but that which made it autonomous as transportable, as conservated, as memorized, as retained by a matter which fix it and made it the inscription of an institutional memory, a dialogue is on the opposite site what is irreducible to a text, to call text such a minimum unit of writing defined by a word evolve to return to performance, before yet, defining dialogicity by arguing that a word have a duplicity as placed within a dialogue in a novel which is already writing as bajtin did, is itself a way to enlarge semantically the concept of dialogue very beyond what a dialogue really is, a dialogue represented under fiction acoording to a mimesis principle is not a dialogue enoght not at least since under such a dimension it is already contrained between writing and a reader so as to call it dialogizing or dialogicity of the reader cultural memory on the mimetized universe allude by the fiction is to confuse culture with the history of literacy, is to confuse mimesis with reality, with the literary diachronic corpus, so far to be dialogue itself, is in a few workd a hidden form of the ideologies of realism, that of the identitary presuppositions between mimetic representation and reality

   We must remember here the depper and profound analisis of derrida on the relation between text and death, he even sustained the sign as text comparing it with the lapidary image of the tumba

   At the same time to call intertextuality such a dialogization of fiction is antinomic in the sense that Kant atributed when asking what is first the whole or the parts, to set in relation texts which as parts are already fixed inscriptions least with the argument that to call text that minimun unity and that it descenter language in the sense of the structural relation langue-speeach

    Kristeva semiotic erudiction assigned to Bajtin dialogicity her concept of intertextuality as a lisence, she was generous in train to do the imposible, to move a theory as the bajtin one strictly constrained by literacy of fiction, to culture under concepts of discourse ancient as artistotles such as relation between subject and predicaments and lacanially interpreting that relation as triadic toward the reader considered as an abstract othernnes, was a way to yuxtapose two phenonemas phenomenologically and ontologically unconcidents

  The truly dialogic considered indeed in culture as from social science is considered is nothing else but to use a kristeva earlier Word what explode intertextuality, it is the oposite of text and as consequence the oposite of any form to encrese the text under a chain of inter-texts, under truly dialogicity intertextuality death and end, if we are theoretically really honests

   We are neither sustaining that nothing as to consider intertextuality under author patters and parameter is imposible, I myself did intertextuality several time with that sense as for example within my work the market from here: mise in scene and experimental ethnography quotind Stephen a tyler postmodern ethnography or later when I proposed durind the spatial conceptualization and design of the exhibit of anthropology and maya art at duran gallery in lake forest, to open and entrance the room of the maya collection and pieces, with a lup of stegerdad archaeology cavinette as an intertextual allusion to the fact that quetzal ways to be in relation with direct maya communities is mediated by his studies of how the museum of archaeology is already present in the community and by references to previous archaeologist working in the same sites, an anthropology of archaeology which at least to a visual exhbitions as such was needed to be understanded intertextuality

   And so on, I have discussed intertextuality several times at author parameters in my semiotic analisis of visual art works and it have a certain possibilities such a way too, but we must ontologically and phenomenologically differentiate the use of this concept when speaking on fiction and when speaking on the immediacy of culture without the mediation of art without extending the parameters of the former over the phenomenology of the last one

     We cant reduce culture to the history of literacy neither to any form of fiction, not from sociology neither from cultural theory and antropology

    Whence examined from the microscope of the laboratory we must also distinguish that under the hight definition of the lup around a ten percent of what have being declared as intertextual are not as such rigorouslly, as eco discussed, intertextual frames are clearly located as one in between many other modes of the frames, and all forms of chains of language, not from the signifier neither from the interpretants are rigorouslly intertextual nearly seen with the microscope

   Now returning to my focuss of analisis, back to sociology and fieldwork, intertextuality considered as an option in research methodology is not necessary something we must be concerned about as interferent to life world and the intramundane horizont, not at least if we take care of maintaining separated what must be by phenomenology as by ontology, fieldwork as a real spatial practice located between day and night in a societary level of experience is higly based and supported, almost depedent and strongly source and arises from life world and the intramundane horizont of the fieldworker and nothing as a saturation of texts must be accepted between one and the immediacy of culture from which and in which strongly based in commun sense and developed through commun sense raise fieldwork in the performance activity. 

   Considered methodologically intertextuality work during certain moments of the process of research like during the definition of the research Project at the beguining during defining how the project will be developed acoording to alternatives as well as at the end during the momento of meeting ourselves with the material collected in a documentary and reconstructive sense from reflexivity, while in the mid time, we should take notes of intertextual phenomenas in the process of Reading

    Within my examples my questions and queries revolves around the study of social and cultural groups throuth three well diferentiated parameters taking shape in between diferiented relations, on the one hand, we set at the Forefront the image a social or cultural group make and have on itself, on the other, in reverse, the images that a social or cultural group have inscribed –we must call it also typify in the commun sense perspective—or relatibly fixed as a memory of what it mean to them the image of them another social and cultural groups or members of it have

  Going beyond, let say that the image a group have on what a neighborn groups means to them is asocieted with the image they have about the image that group have on them which also influence the image they have on themselves, all cultural or social group not only have an image of itself, which is important, but also an umage of the image of itself gave by individuals members of another social or cultural group including thouse kinds of individuals which belonging to certain social meaning as groups are usually associated with studies of social groups as their one and all this form an inscription in that group. The relation between both inscriptions, the one of the image of themselves by itself and the one on the neightbord groups imagen on them, is all we need as the condition of possibility to know a social and culture group as to interact with it, in a few words, nothing is in existence as situational possibilities or representational ones to seize the sense of a social or cultural group outside of the relation between this two inscriptions and the mode to be weaved and related. We must of course consider both sides since the image the second or neighbord group have on the first one are also their own inscriptions as group since they cant evoid that the way the first group mean them inscribe their ways to be in relation with such a former one and that the image they have is also the result of that inscriptions and in reverse

   We are putting here the accent of the image the groups have since we are pointing cultural ways of meaning, symbolizing and representing but without avoiding or forgetting that inscription are not only image our themselves and their neigh bords and in reverse but self inscription defined by their own memories and acervos. Finally we are considering the thirst level, that one of divises which is nothing else as concept than a divert, a way to lead off to deviate in between both inscriptions while not to avoid it but to comprehend it, we discussed already the debise of letting know rockers how punks as urban neighbord group seen them and in reverse as a way to entrance in relation under already meaninfull relation instead of the constrast research-group or subject of knowledge object of it and how i finally transformed it to the climax relaiton of an interfase of the devise, the painting of a canvas meeting members of both urban groups to be presented in a concert as a ritual activity of meaning and communication. 

   The devise is nothing but the comprehension of the two inscriptions as the limit of any possibility of knowing hermeneutically constrained.

   In this sense a devise is an intermediation as well as an interfase designed as deviation, in fact, we cant try inscriptions giving the face to it not because it is hidden or imposible to be verbalized but because inscriptions itself are not as voluntary positions or wishes of ends, inscriptions are constrined memories of the isotopies of situation which limit the subjects under their own inscribed situations and it is imposible as such to face social and cultural groups by simply calling the inscriptions by their names, we must instead creates devises of meaninfull images and relations such as to obtain from the devises the desviation situation which call as possible the inscription, instead of an empty space of meaning or and emptiness of meaning, we must full the situation with meaninfull relation through the intermediation of a devise which will it self set it in motion and introduce us already under it and as a part of it since there is not space to the inscription discussed we are in fact inscribed too and limited under it  .

   Moving the semantic concept of isotopies outside of the sentences of literacy let clearly define the former as nothing else than situational isotopies, we must speak of situational isotopies because situations are not here susceptible to entropic, aleatorial or accidental anacronic as when we confuse situation with everything that may happen even unespectably, while undoubly there is always a certain margin of unspectected news and surprises if we consider social and cultural groups under principles of pertiences inside commun sense and overall through the principles of inscription already discussed we cant exclude the concept of situation from meaninfullnnes relations, the devise helps in this sense to accent and effasize the meaninfullnnes nature of the interactions, it calls the situation to be weaved under relations hermeneutically plenty, to set in relation the image that neighbord groups have one in respect to the other and each one on itself is a way to call out a universe of sense already meaninfull as well as already plenty of sense as such the devises as a needed desvitation between both levels of inscription both intermediate and interfase it.

   Shorty. All a social or cultural group said on itself, the image on itself they have is all we need to know to seize the sense of reality but at the same time we know that the process of semantique explicitation weaved under it, images on themselves images of a neighbor groups on them and in reverse, we never comply or fully access to seize what a group is in itself without putting in relation this two planes, the devises must be articulated between this both sides and take shape as a comprehension of the situation defined in itself by forms of relation between the two planes under semantic explicitations which are nothing than situational isotopies in regard which the devise itself is an hermeneutical construction, a desviation, an elaboration or a moment called to the situation y from it as a form to interfase and mediate it, thus, although the divise itself is not intertextual is must be called later from an intertextual analisis since meeting ourselves with collected materials

   What a person or a social cultural groups or members of it think on themselves, the image they maket on themselves presuppose images they have on the images on their groups another groups have, this another groups may be neighbord groups in a same space such as a village or a city or countries or located in contiguous but something far spaces and in reverse, the later images of the another groups participates in the image they have on themselves or to invent on it, the devise which presupposes itself the situation derived from interaction, moves between this two inscriptions which are at the same time the ontology of its own condition of possibility but from the moment weare focused in the semantic explicitation inside the situational isotopies, the devise present itself as a possibility to mediate this istopies that as a moment pick up and extend it in an interfase which to the situation itself is a desviation

  Returning to the same to accent points, here the notion instead of we never know must be but we never seize the adecuated sense and meanings without to set in relation both inscriptions, what we must seize at the level of sense and meanings will derive from understanding that the image they have on themselves beside to be the result in diferent grades of diverse forms those groups had experience to question themselves on it, are imagen of themselves made acoording to what other groups who have image on them they know more or less means to them and think on them

    We might say desviation or and we might say diagonality too, the meaning of this detail of defining it as desviation and diagonality should mean as follow, we have an itinerary to be made from one dot to another in between which an straight  line is obligated well as we are speking here on situations and on isotopies let imagine that such a relation between dots and lines is not defined as merely Surface and space, but sense and meanings, one dot is a point of view or a point of arguments or meanings another dote from the oposite extreme of the line is another argument, meaning or position, and let supose that instead of taking the straight line between the dots, we do  another survey or traverse which evolve to be a desvitation or a diagonality way to comply, acceso arribe to the oposite dot, let even supose that one dot is an speaker and another dote at the oposite side of the line is another speaker and the line represent not as much a physical survey but the survey the dialogue of relation between enuntiation and counterenuntiation will take, instead of going straight around climax, dramaturgic nudes, topics, predicaments of arguments regarding subjects, we take a survey, a desviation a diagonality, more over, let imagine that between both dots there are point of controversy and that taking the straight line effasize what accent and complicate the communication to the point that a polemic or a incommunication might arise and we take another survey, a desviation or a diagonality, this is not however an avoiding, but relaing things in another forms not spected to be the upcoming since the dots are prestablished by a suposed to be straight way

  In this case we are speaking not exactly on different point of views at all, not necesarilly, but on situations as well as on ways to entrance in relation and engagment subjects not belonging to a same situation of departure, the relation must be between a subject who have a query, questions, purposivenes of knowledge and a research and another one who is not defined by such intentionality when the communication start to happen, must be simply to far us from the complexities of subject and object under knowledge relations of research a subjec who choice to pay attention to himselve and his cultural reality as to wishes about it more than simply living it but thinking on it and another subject who is a part of the same cultural reality who is simply experiencing it, so between purposivennes of knowledge and circunstances of commun sense while about two subjects who culturally and socially belong to the same reality and experience a similar usual situations regarding it, one subject in both examples is a dot, another one the oposite dot in the line

  Or let even take examples from spontaneous situation in every day quotidian life so as suppose subjects who are not motivated under intentions of knowledge even in this case we will find again so as something amazing the two inscription discussed above in this essay

  Dot one is one inscription, dot two is another one of the inscriptions both to the previous examples as to the following one, among it the two inscriptions and its interrelations are ontologically unavoidable, the desviation operates another survey around the situation and its inscriptions, helps to relate the elements in another form, this leads us again to an hermeneutical issue already discussed, the point of focuss is nothing else than to provide the situation with plentinnes of meaninfullnnes over its previous emptiness

  We must now forget as possible extreme opposite situation such as when the inscription are about opposite cultural constitutional experience such as those we experience for example between a very province and a very metropolitan capital, a village and a big city, the rural and the urban and subjects on both sides as one dot and the oposite other within the imagined line which have in between a situation of communication or of interaction or best yet of countenuntiation within a patter of intersubjectivty mutual explicitation

    Instead of that which also accept in any case the devises intermediation, let figure out dots with a mínimum of differences even less than in my research on very similar groups while distinguished such as rocker and urban punks, but focussing very quotidian kind of almost diluted in dayle life situations

    Let define that the margins of familiarity and belonging versus foraneity at this level must be recognized as follow, the level of belonging to a cultural situation is defined by natives and emigrants, only natives or instead emigrants, those who emigrated to a culture, are rigorously a part of it from its inside, other ways are more or less exogenous, dot one and dot two

   Let see for example the variation of the ontology definition of subject acoording to urban funtions such as being clients under one activity and being consumers under another as very nears funtions, while being sidewalkers or transeunts and being usuaries are less nears, instead being usuaries and being clients is more near in between, or purchashers and vendors, all this may be about only one subject whos condition variate from one activity to another such a change evolve variations of situations and as such of inscriptions

  I am thiking here for example in the example of proxemics and cinesic studies, let suppose that we prepare a room in different forms spatially, once with the chairs located as doing a circle, our visitor to the situation will inference that a psicodrama section is going to take place in the afternoom people who will exteriorize their problemas as in a teraphy or probably something as a team meeting of partnerships or a team of sport or of collaborators in a movie, in the next example the room is ordered with one chair alone near to a table and a blackboard looking to many chairs place in lines looking to the isolate chair, our visitor will suppose that a class is going to take place

   If we instead distribute the chair in an aleatorial forms such as groups of chairs on a corner, some chairs here or there under letlee groups, our visitor will imagine that something as a party or an entertainment activity or a rest activity is going to happen while it must also be the clues of an improvised situation, by the placement of the chairs in the room we can infer the situations

    Thus if we are in a supermarket, a market place and two girlds texan girlds are speaking inside the indian food hall and we are in another hall such as the usa, england, australian or japan food hall and we want to afford the girld we must abandon our situation to entrance in their situation, how to do, how to entrance in the another situation as soon as asking to us that question we inmediatly reconigze again now in a microsocial situation exactly the same two inscriptions discussed above in this paper about social and cultural groups, we will have to consider that this girls speaking at the india food hall have an image of thenselves as Texas ready to choice indian food while it also evolve the image they have about the image tha people who usually buy another kind of food have on texasn girlds purchaser of indian food, of girld speaking and of reasons for boys to address or afford them, and the opposite in reverse, while there is additionally the need to set in relation two well differentiated situations under a general one the supermarket, one and the another situations are here the extreme dots of the line, the intermedia inscriptions are the dilemas evolving difficulties to entrance one of the situation inside the another as to create a new one, a debise must be something to desviate this dilemas from a diagonality survey unespected by the dots and the line, a kind of another survey while that is not sufficient, the debise must provide also a way to already full the emptiness of the differences with plenty of meaningfullnnes so as to comply one situation into another by sharing spectatings horizonts and hermeneutic arranges

   So the divises is not exactly a trigger, a trigger must something as to tell a friend call me from the near to the girlds hall of arabean food telling me that there you have find the grains I am looking for and when the another boy arribe then now near as as such hear by the girlds, telling him, well you will probably like to compare it with the Indians so as to justify the entrance to the indian hall and as to justify a sorry beutifull girlds, a need this grains near to you, but the trigger do nothing as to make the entrance of one situation into another as something meaninfullnnes, nothing yet to full the emptiness unrelated one situation with the another, nothing as sharigns of spectations or arranges of interpretation, it is simply the dispositive but without contents, the devises must instead work with the situation isotopies as to offer a desviation or diagonality capable to readecuate both situations into another one already meaninfullness

   Let suppose we are in a buss of hundre passengers from Houston to san Francisco no one know the other and you want to breack the silence with the people nearly around you, how to do it, everyone around will hear it, here the two discussed inscriptions will be against at the forefronts, the trigger here must be letting fall off your watchs so as to provoque something to pic up it to you and be ready to not only said thanks but something more as to start a dialogue, the devise will come later no longer around the starting point, but from the point the situation must advance toward a research projects

  We are in a coffe shop at Berkeley, the mediterranen coffe, for example, sit on a table and reading a book, but all the tables around are doing the same, how to do to entrance in the situation of your neightbord table, both inscriptions are goind to full the situation again not at microsituations levels

        Intertextuality under fielwork is not confused with the exegesis of the texts of culture as discussed in my essay of that title, before well, it is defined by the forms of going and returning from the texts to culture and from culture in return to texts and is stablished overall at the begining and the end of a research, it belong to the analitical, theoretical and reflexibe momento of analizing the forms of research as well as of Reading by clues and inscriptions the texts of culture, beside evolving the reflexivity on devises as articulated around situational isotopies and semantic explicitations including desviations, diagonal trips and representational interfaces which are recalled from the general exegesis of the texts of culture and belong to the reconstructive and documentary momento so intertextuality is not absent at all from participant observation

   This relation pass by several moments from a determinant modality generally prestablished around a Project way to be in culture –my lab in Berkeley 98—the market Project with the museum in caracas 94—making Project in havana 9o—

   Parson separated as we well know several subsistems as diferentiated halls, he defined the person, society and culture as diferentiated and independent autonomous subsistems to action, in this sense with each level separated in between the question about how to go from one subsistem to another methodologically speaking, is considered here in the Forefront, how to go in fact from theorization settings and dialogues to culture and society, recordings in Oakland, from the museum in caracas, from the classroon in havana from spontaneous situations to the later meeting with the collected material

   Space of the project

1-Lab-space of theorization in the academy

Mode of working: travels, routes, itineraries through cities and situations

2-The Museum: space of theorization

Mode of working: itineraries, visits and routes through the urban markets spacialities, situations and interactions

3-Classroon: space of theorization

Mode of working: itineraries and visit to so social and cultural groups in the urban space

4-Social groups in question

a-cities, artesans, boulevard street markets

b-Urban Markets

c-Social and cultural groups spaces such as concerts and private houses meetings

  Now well, the actor who participate within devises situation developed under a project with the purposivennes of a research focused in a topic is informed on that purposiveness in a certain momento of the process of explicitation, something that regulates from that moment the situational isotopies and its analisis, we said regulates from the moment many other things are anticipated to continue participanting in the sucesive situations and as such the devise introduce under it a regulatory function within the evolution of semantique explicitation trajectories based in mutual explicitations, dialogues and communications

   The debise take shape as result of the comprenhesion of the process of semantique explicitation result from the sucesion of situations based in a logic of commun sense usual within interaction so it is a such a another survey diagonal in respect to usual evolution of sucesions in the situational isotopies, such another survey is elaborated in respect to the two inscriptions discussed above by such another survey is not a way to avoid the situation but the emcompass it under a comprehension addressed to create an interfase of the the situations, this interace mediate and intermediate

  The proposal of this interface cross through several moments of reflection on the project discussed with people and trigger a critical reflexibity on representations about which the participants are invited to participate, in berkely the ways to avoid the usual touristic representations overwell the images of the city to instead obtain intersubjective forms of interaction as to provoque another ways to afford the street vendors visual and material culture as well as meanings and the photos of it, in caracas the ways people in the urban market sense and means their world and the ways to avoid observation to emcompass intergestural communication, the phenomenology of seena dn being seen and the polophoni of the market and the making of a work based in it communicated and explicitated, in Havana the use of the image of neihgbord groups to activate already meaninfull ways to mean presence among punks and rokers

   The devise is a moment of fieldwork arrange with the participants addressed to work in an interfase that will mediate the situational isotopies around the topics, in Berkeley the photos made severals by me and another by Leonor antony on me among them while without excluding photos in reverse such as those made by people asked by us on us, in caracas, the market from here: mise in scene and experiemental ethnography as work, in Havana a photographic essay on their body icons, dresses, clouds, habits, styles , hair cuts or a canvas painted in between as a mutual interfase to be showed in next concerts

   The debise suspose indeed by the way interpretative arranges and spectative horizonts around sense and reasons to be of the interfase two both sides. The concept of isotopies referiental to a trajectory of congruence within a narration is here displaced outside of the linguistic surface to be played in between a sucesion of situations congruences acoording to commun sense explicitations understanded semantically, Greimas in fact dicussed a sociology of the comun sense based in semantique, something as such as presupposed here, it takes shapes as result of semantic explicitations  and offers a way to understand another survey between the tow inscriptions discussed in this paper, all this is later recalled from a documentary and reconstructive perspective in a sense intertextuality reconsidered

Referencias

Bourdieu Pierre, Cosas Dichas, Gedisa

Derrida Jacques, Génesis y Estructura: De la Fenomenologia, Antropos

Eco Umberto, Las estructuras discursivas: La explicitación semántica, Pp, 123-1444, Lector un fabula, la cooperación interpretativa en el texto narrativo lumen

Habermas Junger, Ciencias Constructivas y reconstructivas: conciencia moral y acción comunicativa

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Exegesis of the Texts of culture, en Self and Acerbo: The Self and the social Between writing, research and culture, y en, The World Correlate: Interpretant and structure in posmodern cultural theory

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, A Socio-linguistic Archaeology: An análisis of ethos and imageries, paper

Kristeva Julia, Entrevista con Jacques Derrida