According to Baudrillard (1998), digital media have put people in the position of having to rebuild cultures from the ashes of the “dead signs” of the “real” world. But, as it turns out, these new signs are not that much different from the old ones. So, Baudrillard predicts, in a short time “virtual communication’’will become “real communication” again, as people begin to realize that their bodies are as much a part of creating signs as are their minds. Paradoxically,Baudrillardgoesontoquip,thecomputerwillengenderadesire to “re-embody” communicationand interaction,that is, to get people to literally talk to each other with the voice.

Nicolaus' attack on the American Sociological Association at its 1968 meeting in Boston, during the heday of the New Left and the movement against the war in Vietnam, is a classic formulation of this charge:

Sociology is not now and never has been any objective seeking out of objective truth or reality. Historically, the profession is an outgrowth of 19th century European traditionalism and conservatism, wedded to 20th century American corportation liberalism… Sociologists stand guard in the garrison and report to its masters on the movements of the occupied populace. The more adventurous sociologists don the disguise of the people and go out to mix with the peasants in the 'field', returning with books and articles that break the protective secrecy in which a subjugated population wraps itself, and make it more accsesible to manipulation and control.

I was recently assigned the first chapter of Marcel Danesi's Messages, signs, and meanings, and, as usual, was shocked and energized by this discussion. Compare it with the second chapter of the unfortunately titled book found below which I encountered a number of months ago. Just run a search for the title of the chapter, "Spirit and Flesh." Be sure to read Howard's first chapter too.

Learners who have not yet developed beyond the concrete stage of cognitive development are unable meaningfully to incorporate within their cognitive structures a relationship between two or more abstractions unless they have the benefit of current or recently prior concrete-empirical experience.

From Learning theory and classroom practice (1967) by Ausubel

And that's why we travel

The modern mall satisfies several psychic and social needs at once. It is perceived as a safe and purified space for human socialization; it is felt to be a haven for combating loneliness and boredom; it provides a theatrical atmosphere proclaiming the virtues of a consumerist utopia; it imparts a feeling of security and protection against the world of cars, mechanical noises, and air pollution outside; it shields against rain, snow, heat, cold; it conveys a feeling of control and organization-in a phrase, the mall is placeless and timeless.

Officially, the first mall was Country Club Plaza in Kansas City, Missouri (although department stores already existed in the nineteenth century in Europe). A small collection of Spanish Colonial buildings surrounded by a parlung lot, it opened in 1922. Since then, malls have gradually evolved into self-contained consumerist fantasylands, where one can leave the problems and hassles of daily life literally “outside.” In the controlled “inside” environment of the mall everything is clean, shiny, cheery, and optimistic. The mall is commonly experienced as a nirvana of endless shopping, cosmeticized and simplified to keep grisly reality out of sight and out of mind. In the same way that one can “switch” from TV scene to TV scene with a remote-control, one can switch from clothing store to coffee stand, to pinball parlor, to lottery outlet with great ease at a mall. The mall subtext is essentially shopping = paradise on earth. But this is ultimately an empty, vacuous subtext. Very few people will claim that their experiences at shopping malls are memorable, rewarding, or meaningful. Indeed, they do not remember them for very long once they have
left.

The various elements of the building text are, of course, signifiers. Consider, for instance, how the height of a building can convey a specific kind of meaning. The cities built during the medieval period had one outstanding architectural feature-the tallest building noticeable along their skyline was the bell tower of the church or the church itself. The spires on medieval churches rose majestically upwards to the sky, reflecting semiotically the fact that there is something overpowering about looking up at tall buildings, malung one feel small and insignificant by comparison bringing out a desire for heavenly aspiration in a concrete way. The height of churches thus came to symbolize the power and wealth of the Church. But, with the rise of secularism after the Renaissance, cities were gradually redesigned architecturally to reflect a new political order. The tallest buildings were the palaces of aristocrats and rich bourgeoisie-such as the buildings constructed in Urbino, Italy. Today, the tallest buildings in sprawling urban centers are certainly not churches or palaces. The tallest structures in cities like Dallas, Toronto, Montreal, New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles are owned by large corporations and banks. Wealth and power now reside literally and symbolically in these institutions.

In a sense, architecture is all about imposing order on space.

What we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert—himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem.

From Orthodoxy (1908) by G.K. Chesterton