Comments on Sasha Newell's Article (2018) "The Affectiveness of Symbols"

By Razie Mah

In February 2018, Sasha Newell, Associate Professor in Anthropology at the Free University of Brussells, publishes an article that marks the changing of the guard. Newell aims to mesh affective theory and the new materialism with classic symbolic anthropology. The hybrid should overcome the weaknesses of both. The materiality of symbols produces affect. The efficacy of ritual is based on the manipulation of affect.
Newell's research investigates affectively charged material objects in storage spaces in US homes. What is the source of their emotional power?
These comments rely on models built on category-based nested forms. An interscope developed in Comments on Proudfoot's book (1985) Religious Experience will bootstrap the re-articulation.
Models of specificative and exemplar signs were developed in comments of John Deely's book (1994) "New Beginnings". These comments synthesize one more sign, which I call the "interventional sign". An interventional sign comes into play in the contest between hoarders and trashers.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Razie Mah
• Release date: Apr 8, 2018
• ISBN: 9781942824466

Razie Mah

See website for bio.

Book preview

Comments on Sasha Newell's Article (2018) The Affectiveness of Symbols

By Razie Mah

Published for Smashwords.com

2018

Abstract

This work comments on an article published in the February 2018 issue of Current Anthropology. It re-articulates the argument using category-based nested forms.

Single quotes and italics are used to group words together.

Prerequisites include A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

Table of Contents

Impressions

Emojis and Affect Theory

Hoarding: The Call of the Emoji

The Untimely Death of Signs

Hauntings

What Constitutes the Effectiveness of Symbols?

Affectively Collective

My Conclusion

Impressions

0001 My first impression of Sasha Newell's article, subtitled Materiality, Magicality, and the Limits of the Antisemiotic Turn, runs like this, Newell's argument belongs to an internal debate in today's house of anthropology. (Semiological) symbolic anthropology is well established and dried out. Some vitalists associate formal analysis to death. Yet, the main alternative, affect theory, is stuck in the mud. Newell aims to join both through a magical formula, going something like this, The materiality of symbols inspires affect. The efficacy of symbols is founded on the manipulation of affect."

0002 My second impression walks like this, "Newell's use of words shows that the specialized language of anthropology is in crisis. There are two facets to the issues."

0003 One, Newell calls signs semiotic. To me, the term, semiotics applies to Peirce's formula. Signs are triadic relations. Affect theory is based on signs, but Peirce's terminology is not used. Furthermore, the author labels classical anthropologists anti-semiotic.

So, what is classical symbolic anthropology?

The term, semiology labels the tradition of Ferdinand de Saussure, defining language as two arbitrarily related systems of differences. A Saussurean symbol is a placeholder in a system of differences. It's role in myth and ritual is symbolic because it represents what is supposed to go into the placeholder.

Classical semiological anthropology aims to formally delineate the symbols within the ritual's