Kmtyw categorization vs. ameripean categorization-gctid49564

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

What is the significance of the following quote in reference to Kmtyw concepts of categorization vs. ameripean models of categorization?

"n the sorting task, twenty items representing five types of food, five types of clothing, and five types of cooking utensils were heaped on a table in front of a Kpelle subject. When the subject had finished sorting, what was present were ten categories composed of two items each — related to each other in a functional, not categorical, manner. Thus, a knife might have been placed with an orange, a potato with a hoe, and so on. When asked, the subject would rationalize the choice with such comments as, 'The knife goes with the orange because it cuts it.'  When questioned further, the subject would often volunteer that a wise man would do things in this way.  When an exasperated experimenter asked finally, 'how would a fool do it,' he was given back sorts of the type that were initially expected — four neat piles with foods in one, tools in another, and so on." (Glick 1975:635-6)

Glick, J (1975). Cognitive development in cross-cultural perspective. In F Horrowitz, Review of Child Development Research. Chicago. 4.

[Agbede]

What immediately comes to mind is the example of Kmtyw science versus krakkker science. With Kmtyw science/technology being married to to the practical needs of the society (what the wise person does) while "ameripean" science is simply a tool they use to impose their rationalizations onto the world (what the fool does). To me, that quote highlights these differences.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Agbede]

And to add on to what I just posted, consider that a majority of ameripean science (social science and natural science) is about classifying this, categorizing that, and labelling everything else. The quote should make Kmtyws think twice about the wisdom in following their models of science given these types of asilically embedded cultural assumptions.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

I remember reading this excerpt about 10 years ago and it always stuck with me. Two points that came to mind were that:

'"

n".self::process_list_items("'.str_replace('
', '', '

• With critiques of ameripean compartmentalization and categorization we may lose sight of the fact that Kmtyws had and continue to have our own means of categorization (it's not that because ameripean categorization is "bad" all categorization is therefore un-Kmtyw). The Bantu noun classes are probably one of the oldest existing examples of such categorizations developed by Kmtyws. Also the role of the determinative in Mdw Ntr is probably related to a noun class type of system.
• When we speak of something being Kmtyw it's not simply to say that continental Kmtyws happen to be doing it. There are wise continental (and diasporan) Kmtyws and there are fools. Sometimes the purpose or intent of categorization is what distinguishes one from the other. In this case, to show that one is wise (i.e. has learned from experience) one shows that he/she knows that to get to the food, X tool is needed. A fool who doesn't understand the relationship between one and the other and doesn't know where the food comes from just categorizes based on "this goes into my mouth", "this is metal". I recall a story of a teenager who didn't know ground beef wrapped in cellophane came from a cow. When we are separated from how things relate, are relative and are relevant, we become apt to the fool's way of categorizing things; which happens to be the ameripean way of doing things. In that way of doing things, the less people know, the more profit can be made off of them.

').'")."n[/list type=decimal]"'
I'm using this quote in my dissertation which deals with categorization of serial verbs in Akan and decided to share. Hopefully it proves thought provoking for others as well.

[Agbede]

It would be foolish to say that because krakkkers categorize, or use their left brains, or use language to communicate that those things are unKmtyw and "bad." It makes more sense to have an approach to reality that says, for example that krakkkers are our historical enemies and everything that they produce or touch becomes a tool for our destruction, therefore it may be unintellegent to use their system of categorization, to overemphasize the "left brain" the way they do, and to communicate the way they do (ie use their languages). So to the extent that we are currently dependent on them (language, technology, food production, kwk) it is to that extent and in those areas that we should be working to become independent of them.

Obadele Kambon;49597 wrote: When we are separated from how things relate, are relative and are relevant, we become apt to the fool's way of categorizing things; which happens to be the ameripean way of doing things. In that way of doing things, the less people know, the more profit can be made off of them.

Ampa! So then the job of Kmtyw parents/educators is to educate their children in a way that teaches them how things relate, are relative and are relevant.
Posted via Mobile Device