By comparing the basic rules of physics with the dynamics of social fields, we can put forward interesting hypotheses that explore: when constructing modes of social links between humans, the interpretations of human-traces interact with each other. Some become attracted to each other and are likely to come together in order to shape fields whose:
– limits are defined by the interpretations they repel and reject; and whose
– internal interactions give rise to specific operating rules with an objective to protect the field and the place of those who initiated the rules.
Here we find the constitution of social fields, as described by Bourdieu (1989) in his book Distinction.
In The Trace Odyssey 1, we note that the conséquences-traces of these interactions can be found at all scales of the field, such as social “practices” (including those related to the use of digital technology) and “communicating” behaviors (Galinon-Mélénec and Martin-Juchat 2008) of what we call “corps-traces”.
Interactions between fields are likely to produce their evolution at the margin, then their transformation. The evolution of these fields bears the trace of the forces at work. Some develop more rapidly than others, resulting in an increase in the mass of people who share a certain point of view (Boltanski et al. 1971):
– on the one hand, a mass of great importance – which we shall name A – produces an energy that may seem sufficient to impose its point of view on other fields. In this category, we could place the mass of interactions that are consolidated from an economic, financial and market point of view considered as dominant (ibid.); and
– on the other hand, there are masses positioned at the margin whose weight is less than that of A but they release a high kinetic energy. We name them B.
However, B, despite its smaller size, can count on its high kinetic energy to eventually succeed in changing the rules of the game initially established by A and produce a reorganization of the whole in favor of the rules (values, group points of view) that guide B’s action.
The traceable conséquences-traces of the process (which can be more or less violent) that led to this change are still visible in the new field. This is what leads us to insist on the role of the process that generates the trace. In this case the “perceived process” (Galinon-Mélénec 2011) produces the form that the traces of A’s points of view take in the new constituted field.
In the rest of the book, we apply this concept to different domains. What a human being interprets at an instant t bears the traces of the interaction between two dynamic processes. The process that built its gaze (its individual-social genesis) and the process that produced what it is looking at.
NOTE.– The project that underpins The Trace Odyssey 1 provides examples that show that it is possible to deconstruct the formation of individual and social viewpoints by focusing on processus traçuels40 of which they are the conséquences-traces.
I.12. Axioms underpinning The Trace Odyssey project
The lineament followed in this Odyssey is based on the axioms41 summarized in Box I.1. They aim to express the conception of access to a reality of a cognitive interpreter (or CI) and the resulting understanding and interpretations of that reality.
The rest of the book presents concrete examples, showing the importance of these axioms with regard to the concept of trace.
In this introductory chapter, these axioms are set out (see Box I.1) as introductory enunciations to situate the phenomena that are to be analyzed in the course of The Trace Odyssey 1.
Box I.1, below, is part of a so-called “constructivist” trend of thought where, as we shall see below, systems are constantly co-constructing themselves to produce a dynamic global ecosystem.
Box I.1. Ten axioms as a basis for The Trace Odyssey
From the Real to a reality…
The Real is already here, before humans even knew about it:
A.1. every point of the Real can therefore be considered as a “conséquence-trace”;
A.2. at the moment when humans can observe the Real, it becomes “the reality” to them;
A.3. not all the present dimensions of reality at the time when a human being observes it are necessarily perceptible to them.
…Via “corps-trace”…
Each body is unique and is the result of a complex history whose “conséquences-traces” are multi-scale:
A.4. each specific human signals a fragment of the reality that they interpret42;
A.5. the senses pass through the “corps-trace”/milieu relationship;
A.6. the intelligibility of the reality takes into account A.5.
…Via nodes of complex conséquences-traces
Any point in the Real is the result of a complex history of consequences going back to the origin of the world that can be considered as a node of complex conséquences-traces:
A.7. each individual is the result of a complex history of consequences – due not only to his or her life history, but also to the history of humankind who preceded them – this can be considered to be composed of “nodes” of complex conséquences-traces;
A.8. a trace that attracts the attention of an individual as a sign can usefully be called a signe-trace. Any point of the perceived reality can thus be considered as a signe-trace;
A.9. the perception of each individual results from an “activation-interaction” between nodes of conséquences-traces;
A.10. the rational deconstruction of the history of the traces constituting the reality perceived by humans is so complex that they cannot hope to achieve it. At most, they can claim to provide a simplified representation of reality, known as “simplexity43”.
I.13. The corps-trace at the heart of the relationship between the individual and the “milieu”
To put forward the bodily dimension of a human being, as an inescapable deterrent to any anthropocentric interpretation, is to consider humans as not being pure spirits, but to recognize that their rationality, however powerful it may be, cannot ignore their senses, emotions, cultural and social components.
It is also to be noted that:
– on one hand, the presence of a body in an milieu leaves traces;
– on the other hand, the milieu produces effects – traces – on and in the body.
These continuous interactions build a “corps-trace” specific to each human.
Figure I.4. An individualized perception of reality that takes into account many factors, including sensoriality, affective reality and emotion (Galinon-Mélénec 2008)
REMARKS PERTAINING TO FIGURE I.4. – In this figure we can observe:
– on the left:- the body’s senses are located as channels