Tarot and its associations...

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 17 Jan 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Centaur	17 Jan 2003
I have just read a post in which tarot was implied as having sinful associations. This reminds me of the time I told one of my close friends of my fondness for tarot. I was greeted by the most horrified expression. Anyone would have thought that I was interested in stripping myself naked and dipping myself in a vat of hot oil! Anyway, I questioned the nature of the response, and was told 'Tarot cards are evil, and are against the good nature of God'. Even now, one of my flatmates refuses to let me read her cards, insisting that she 'is not into that'. Pressed further, she states that they are 'evil'. There is a social psychological theory which incorporates socio-cultural beliefs, values, and practices in the psychological development of the individual. This is the theory of social representations as proposed by the French Social Psychologist Moscovici (1984). Social representations are systems of beliefs, ideas, values, and practices circulating within a society and the groups within that society at any given time. They circulate via numerous communicative pathways, eg. literature, the media, and conversation etc. The individual is born into this pre-defined world to interact with these beliefs, ideas, and practices, gradually developing his or her own thoughts with regards to a certain phenomenon. This in turn affects the individual's behaviour in relation to that phenomenon. The phenomenon of tarot is very interesting here. Think of the associations embedded within its very nature. Sin is but only one example. Obviously, my friend, had been exposed from birth to very strict Christian representations of good and evil, tarot somehow becoming muddled up within these representations, alongside notions of other perceived 'mysterious' phenomena. This, it seemed, impacted upon her behaviour when I told her of my 'Godless' pursuits. I thought this would be an interesting discussion - tarot and its associations over the years. Any thoughts? Centaur

Umbrae	17 Jan 2003
Forget the discussion, just tell me more! How wonderfully fascinating…where might an ignorant geek find more information? BTW: Tarot is not evil, video games are evil.

patter	17 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 I have just read a post in which tarot was implied as having sinful associations. rock roll, video games, role-playing games, fantasy books -- some people have a very narrow definition of virtue and a wide definition of sin -- I prefer the reverse -- 'an it harm none, do as you will ("a witch! burn her! ;)) Quote: There is a social psychological theory which incorporates socio-cultural beliefs, values, and practices in the psychological development of the individual. [/b] A LOT of theories are relativist in this way, this is but one of them. Yes, for some people if it isn't the bible, it's sin. Tarot is associated with magic (it is used in a magical way) magic with black magic and therefore with evil. (the only white magic is the province of god and not people -- get thee behind me ... etc). In most cases it isn't worth havoing the argument.

Khatruman	17 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae BTW: Tarot is not evil, video games are evil. Totally agreeing with you here, Umbrae. I was at a get together with some other teachers over Christmas break. We were at one teachers house and conversing in the dining room. The living room was next door and the kids flipped on the big 56" TV and fired up their Playstation Two. I watched at first out of the corner of my eye as a game came on called Grand Theft Auto. Well, it began taking my attention even more when, not only was the character the kids played breaking into cars, but at one point he took up a chainsaw and started revving into people on the streets, flesh and blood flying as the bodies convulsed and fell upon the ground, all this in glorious 56" graphic lifelike detail and evoking joyful pre teen laughter. I think what was more appalling was the adult apathetic reaction. Nobody really seemed to notice. And tarot cards are evil??? *scratches my head*

Jewel	17 Jan 2003
I would add TV to the video games .... I am saddened by how decensitized we are as a race (human race that is). Just makes me sick ... one of the reasons I do not plan to have kids, I don't want to bring them into the world as it is today.

Khatruman	17 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Jewel one of the reasons I do not plan to have kids, I don't want to bring them into the world as it is today. Had to respond to this since a good friend of mine used this argument for not having kids herself. When she said that, I said, "Well much of what children become is influenced by how parents raise them, what they teach them through action and inaction, involvement and non-involvement." I knew she would be a wonderful, loving mother and told her that it would be reflected in her child, should she have one. If she chooses NOT to have a child, those who make the mistakes in raising children not to be much better will STILL have children. I didn't have a child at the time, but I said that I planned to have one to help on the side of bringing the world into a better place. If the caring people give up, who wins? Did I make any sense? I know more goes into your decision than this, but I just wanted to comment. Sorry if I took the thread off topic. Peace!

tarotbear	17 Jan 2003
Old joke: A: Is television dangerous for you? B: I don't know. I never had one fall on me. Television is probably one of the greatest evils there is - not movies. A single televison show can reach more viewers than a movie running to packed houses for months. In the average 'situation comedy' - an offshoot of such parents as 'I Love Lucy' - the language 'allowed' sometimes turns my head! I expect a movie to have four-lettered words that may get not censored, but sometimes what people are saying during prime time television---amazing! Sex, drugs, adult content- all there for a child to watch and believe is natural and acceptable- just like the video game with the guy with a chainsaw. Last night I watched a show where two black youths discussed getting their girlfriends pregnant - not up there with 'Vitameatavegamin!' Tarot - 'evil' ? What planet are you from?

Jewel	17 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman Did I make any sense? I know more goes into your decision than this, but I just wanted to comment. Absolutly makes sense ... I will PM you on Monday so as to not deviate this thread further :)

MeeWah	17 Jan 2003
Centaur20: This is fascinating, so I am with Umbrae--please tell us more! Cultural traditions & societal mores influence one's perceptions & responses. From birth on, one is constantly bombarded by direct & indirect stimuli from the environment that are absorbed either consciously or unconsciously. The association of "evil" with Tarot may be based in the earlier efforts to discredit its use by religious authorities. Those individuals had more than just altruistic concern for the well-being of their constituents in discouraging its use. Since the survival of organized religion & its clergy depends upon people willing to support & to be led by same, something like Tarot could diminish the power of the clergy & instead, confer more power to the hands of the general populace. That some of the argument against Tarot (& other things/practices) was based on the interpretation of scripture lent it credibility that persists to this day. It has occurred to me that perhaps even that long ago, the wise recognized that a less integrated person could experience difficulties after delving into divination or another metaphysical pursuit. In that sense, it would be akin to opening a Pandora's Box. Tarot is a phenomena that has been accompanied by its uncertain history of origin & that it has also largely been the domain of few of the populace. That has added to its mystique & contributed to the association of secret knowledge with Tarot. Due to its nature, that association is not without grounds & is also one that has persisted over time.

HudsonGray	17 Jan 2003
I figure there'll always be people with an extremely narrow world view. It still shocks me when people react that 'knee jerk' strong about certain things they don't know anything about. Tarot being one of them. Used to be science fiction freaked the hell out of people till Star Trek got to be popular, now we have Sabrina & Charmed to really befuddle people about witches...but not much has reached the masses about tarot yet. Well, I CAN say that talking to printers about printing up a tarot deck didn't really freak anyone out, in fact some were pretty interested in the art I had on me, and I had been expecting resistence to the point where I was first calling it a 'card game' done for 'family'. Turns out I didn't need to. All 9 of the places I was checking at had no problem with the concept of a tarot deck. (Good! I HATE being lectured at by people trying to save me.)

ihcoyc	17 Jan 2003
Most people know little of Tarot except what they see on TV. And, of course, on TV, the Tarot nine times out of ten will predict "Death!" And then somebody dies. If this was all I knew of the subject, I probably would steer clear of Tarot readings --- even if I knew nothing else about it. Fundamentalists stirring up fear of the "occult" while practicing their own versions of occultism are part of the general cultural noise of the USA, and perhaps elsewhere. The thing that makes me ill about television is issues melodrama. I can take foul language; I probably would be happier with more honest nudity and explicit sex than all of the endless teasy chatter of the sitcoms. But issues melodrama is the really repulsive thing about television. All of those doctors, lawyers, and cops making endless bombastic speeches; all of the network-standards tough talk; all the attempts to push emotional hot-buttons by making melodrama out of stale headlines --- that is what got me off television. An evening of this overacted twaddle is probably more corrosive to the social fabric than a hundred thousand naughty words. I wouldn't even keep one in the house if it weren't for Cartoon Network.

Centaur	17 Jan 2003
Moscovici's (1984) theory of social representations stretches back to Durkheim and his notions of the collective representation. Collective representations are static, representations of phenomena, whereas social representations are dynamic, ever changing, and fluid cultural products. I'll post some more information about the general theory and then i'll link it all back to tarot. Moscovici’s (1984) theory of social representations defines a social representation as a system of belief, knowledge, ideas, values, and practices existing in a society and the groups within that society at any given time. Social representations are inherent in each culture, and the various practices and communicative genres within each culture. Circulating within each culture via a multitude of communicative pathways, e.g. the mass media, and conversation etc, social representations form a mass of often-contradictory beliefs, ideas, and images. It is against this background that the individual establishes his or her own representations; the representation a product of an intertwining of the individual and his or her environment. This process is in effect from the moment the child begins to interact with the world, his or her interactions introducing him or her to a ready made world of pre-existing ideas, beliefs, and values, each of which are engaged with in the formation of his or her own representations. Social representations serve to make the ‘unfamiliar familiar’ (Moscovici 1984). In other words they serve as a tool with which the individual can position the new and the unfamiliar, incorporating what is unknown in to what is already historically or culturally familiar. This is by means of two processes; anchoring and objectification. Anchoring refers to the process by which the individual classifies a new phenomenon, placing it into an already familiar category, and in the context of previous knowledge. This is very much the process of establishing abstract connections to similar phenomena. Working in connection with this is the process of objectification, by which the new phenomenon is transformed into concrete or physical reality, e.g. as a symbol, metaphor or image etc. These two processes are rooted in culture, the anchored phenomenon classified in terms of pre-existing cultural and historical knowledge, the objectified phenomenon made concrete in culturally popular ways. Most of the work carried out within the social representational perspective has focussed on the representations of health and illness, in particular HIV/AIDS; how culture bound notions of HIV/AIDS interact with the individual and ultimately impact upon their safer sex behaviour, e.g. A study by Stockdale (1995), found that the individual perceives the threat of HIV/AIDS with the other. In particular, heterosexual respondents within her study located the threat of HIV/AIDS with the gay community. HIV/AIDS was perceived as being a 'homosexual problem'. Thus, the heterosexual respondents did not feel it was necessary to use condoms during intercourse. Ofcourse, this can all be linked back further to media coverage, and the ideas circulating through culture via this medium; headlines such as 'the gay plague' etc. It would certainly make an interesting study (from my perspective anyway hehe), to examine social representations of tarot. Ideas, beliefs, practices, and images, abound within society with regards to tarot. Religion becomes intertwined as do ideas connected with mystery and the occult. I find the historical backgrounds described in the previous posts by Meewah and ihcoyc to be very relevant indeed. Meewah refers to the historical context and background in which tarot evolved, and ihcoyc refers to the power of culturally popular communicative pathways, i.e. the media, in influencing our thoughts. As noted before, the construction of a social representation involves two processes. Anchoring and objectification. In terms of anchoring, tarot might be (might be because no study has been carried out! but i'd say it is a good enough guess!) anchored in ideas of 'evil', 'occult', 'mystery' etc, and objectified in terms of ihcoyc's reference to the media image of tarot as specific cards, e.g. death. Some people, like my flatmate, objectify tarot in the image of the devil. People use culturally popular notions in the objectification process. Comments please! I think the theory of social representations is very highly fascinating. And it's sort of a 'rebel' theory within social psychology. Mainstream social psychology is generally very individualist and reductionist, examining the individual as removed from his or her context (e.g. laboratory settings). Social representation theory is part of a growing trend within social psychology which incorporates culture in the social psychological development and functioning of the individual. It's very cool! If anyone wants any further information on this then please let me know. It's the theory i'm studying for my MSc and PhD (with specific relation to HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections). Centaur

Centaur	17 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HudsonGray I figure there'll always be people with an extremely narrow world view. It still shocks me when people react that 'knee jerk' strong about certain things they don't know anything about. Tarot being one of them. Used to be science fiction freaked the hell out of people till Star Trek got to be popular, now we have Sabrina & Charmed to really befuddle people about witches...but not much has reached the masses about tarot yet. Again, this is exactly what I was talking about. People don't know where to locate tarot - it's the unfamiliar.... the unknown. So they anchor it in narrow-minded notions. I think Sabrina and Charmed are societies attempts to objectify representations of the occult. Sort of makes the occult more 'friendly' in a sense, and not so 'unknown'; 'hell, if Sarah Michelle Gellar can cast spells and kill Vampires, then the occult is pretty damn good, right?' Society works in wierd and wonderful ways... Centaur Buffy Hater HEHE

jmd	18 Jan 2003
Wonderful to have this thread. I have not read any Moscovici, but can see from your description its descent and relation to not only Durkheim, but Levi-Strauss. For me, these psycho-social considerations are important, but usually also, of necessity given their context, miss on something else of equal import: the spiritual dimension at play in both the individual and what is at hand. I am also reminded of three wonderful papers I read, the first quite a number of years before Moscovici's 1984 publication, titled something like 'Body ritual amongst the Nacirema' (who can forget such a title!), published in circa 1956 in either American Anthropologist or a journal by a similar name (I don't have access to these right now); the second a wonderful piece describing the proliferation, virus-style, of the wearing of american baseball caps by adolescents and youths around the globe (it may have been either by R. Barthes or someone commenting on his works); the third, more recently, a wonderful description of the historical and causal relation between the size of the propelling rockets of the Space Shuttle the size of a horse's rear! But to get back to the task at hand. Of course we are born within not only a family context, with certain genetic dispositions, and psycho-social forces operating upon our developing individualities, but there is something else operating: the transcendent individual Spirit of our true I. When I step into our older Saab in Melbourne, I drive it, and behave, somewhat differently then when I drove a Citroen SM (2-door sports-model) on the M1 when living in London in the late 70s - or when I drove a small Ford through the streets of San Fransisco in the early 90s. Here, certainly not only the cars and their social status/expectation had an impact, but also, quite importantly, the way I drive! It seems to me that most investigations, looking only at the similarities amongst the ways that people drive certain vehicles, make conclusions broader than warranted. Of course a reasonably new 2-door sports car on a Freeway/Motorway driven by a younger person is more likely to exceed any nominal speed limit than a station wagon driven by a middle-aged person with family in tow. What the type of investigation will not reveal, however, and in fact mask in its conclusions, is the individual character which manifests across time. Are we attracted to Tarot simply because of its viral-phonemic qualities, and our serendipitous exposure to it - or are there also spiritual and deeper connections which we have to its being? This is the kind of question which cannot, of course, even be properly asked within the constraints of academic merit. As does the mere historical research into its early manifestation is important and useful, so is its social and psychological effect and diffusion - but, to my mind at least, it also has other façades not contained by one-sided investigations, however important. ...and centaur20, can you give us a title or a link to some of the more important work? I would be interested in reading it.

divinerguy	18 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 I have just read a post in which tarot was implied as having sinful associations . . . . I was greeted by the most horrified expression. Any thoughts? . . . Centaur "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." Albert Einstein

Centaur	19 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Of course we are born within not only a family context, with certain genetic dispositions, and psycho-social forces operating upon our developing individualities, but there is something else operating: the transcendent individual Spirit of our true I. I would have to agree with you. There is definetly something unique with regards to each individual; that person's 'I' or 'me'. Ofcourse, science would argue that this is due to that person's specific genetic dispositions, and interaction with the environment. However, I think it goes much deeper than that. Social representation theory is particularly interesting because it views scientific knowledge as being on a par with lay knowledge. They are just two different types of knowledge. There is no 'correct' way of thinking. After all, science is a cultural product in itself. Let us remind ourselves of science and mistakes within science (the 'correct' way of thinking), that have impacted greatly upon the world, e.g. the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the sixties. Science is steeped in morality, values, and cultural traditions. For instance there is an interesting study by Wagner et al (1999) exploring representations of madness in the city of Patna, North India. The inhabitants of Patna explain madness with reference to ghost possession, and treat 'mad' individuals by using traditional methods of healing. Social representation theory makes no judgement as to whether this is wrong or correct. This is just one in many 'explanations' with regards to a specific phenomenon. As is Western science... Personally, I think that we are drawn to tarot cards on a spiritual level. It is all to do with seeking answers. For me it is anyway. It is to do with acknowledging that there are some things that science cannot explain. On another note, it could also be argued that specific cards have specific social representations. For instance, if you look on the Using Tarot Cards thread, you will see varied social representations with respect to the meaning of certain cards. These representations are different for different people, e.g. the Death card, to someone who has never used the tarot, likely refers to physical death, whereas to someone who reads tarot it means something entirely different. Jmd, here is a link exploring social representation theory; it is an on-line journal of studies. http://www.psr.jku.at/psrindex.htm There are many interesting studies here. I think if you check the 2002 volume, there is a fascinating study concerned with representations of god. You may also find the following books of interest - Markova I, & Farr R (Eds) (1995), Representations of Health, Illness, and Handicap, Harwood Academic Publishers. Farr R, & Moscovici S (Eds) (1984), Social Representations, Cambridge University Press. There is a more concise volume of social representation theory, I think published in 1998, called Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology, by Moscovici, and edited by Gerard Duveen. Durkheim, E. (1898). Representations individuelles et representations collectives. Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale, VI, 273-302. Good luck with trying to track this one down!! HEHE. Moscovici, S. (1976). La Psychanalyse: Son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (deuxieme edition). Unfortunately, this book is unavailable in English. It is Moscovici's original study of the social representations of psychoanalysis within French society. Hope this helps.

Alex	19 Jan 2003
Let's go step by step Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 I have just read a post in which tarot was implied as having sinful associations. Some people associate the Tarot with sin... Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 The phenomenon of tarot is very interesting here. Think of the associations embedded within its very nature. Sin is but only one example. Obviously, my friend, had been exposed from birth to very strict Christian representations of good and evil, tarot somehow becoming muddled up within these representations, alongside notions of other perceived 'mysterious' phenomena. This, it seemed, impacted upon her behaviour when I told her of my 'Godless' pursuits. [/b] and you try to explain it under the light of this "Theory of social representations", which I'm unware of and can't really discuss about with you but... How does the example mentioned above differ from an example of "learned behaviour"? (which needs not to imply a theory of it's own, it's part of the regular current psychological paradigm) Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 There is a social psychological theory which incorporates socio-cultural beliefs, values, and practices in the psychological development of the individual. This is theory of social representations as proposed by the French Social Psychologist Moscovici (1984). Social representations are systems of beliefs, ideas, values, and practices circulating within a society and the groups within that society at any given time. They circulate via numerous communicative pathways, eg. literature, the media, and conversation etc. The individual is born into this pre-defined world to interact with these beliefs, ideas, and practices, gradually developing his or her own thoughts with regards to a certain phenomenon. This in turn affects the individual's behaviour in relation to that phenomenon. [/b] Again, what's really new to this theory that is not explained by the available theories on how culture/environment affects one's identity, beliefs and psychological development? I'm trying to understand your point but unfortunately it's not very clear to me. Alex. I thought this would be an interesting discussion - tarot and its associations over the years. Any thoughts? Centaur [/b][/quote]

Alex	19 Jan 2003
I have to disagree here. They are not *just* different types of knowledge. Science is NOT a kind or a type of knowledge. Science is a method, or better saying, a collection of methods that we use in order to validate a specific body of knowledge: knowledge that holds up/withstands specific tests. Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 Social representation theory is particularly interesting because it views scientific knowledge as being on a par with lay knowledge. They are just two different types of knowledge. There is no 'correct' way of thinking. Yes, but what is NOT a cultural product within the human knowledge accumulated so far? Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 After all, science is a cultural product in itself. [/b] Yes. But two things here: 1) knowledge validated through the scientific method is not necessarily "true". It holds true until one can prove it false. That's the whole deal about science: anyone is allowed to/invited to tear a theory down into pieces and that's what most scientists are paid for anyway: not to "discover" new things as much as to prove old ones wrong. Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 Let us remind ourselves of science and mistakes within science (the 'correct' way of thinking), that have impacted greatly upon the world, e.g. the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the sixties. Science is steeped in morality, values, and cultural traditions. [/b] There is a difference between "scientific knowledge" and "true knolwedge" we all should know about, and it has been known for longer than the 1980's: the first is generated and maintained according with the scientific method. The latter is a matter of faith. The first relies on the latter in a level. Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 For instance there is an interesting study by Wagner et al (1999) exploring representations of madness in the city of Patna, North India. The inhabitants of Patna explain madness with reference to ghost possession, and treat 'mad' individuals by using traditional methods of healing. Social representation theory makes no judgement as to whether this is wrong or correct. This is just one in many 'explanations' with regards to a specific phenomenon. As is Western science... . [/b] There is one thing you seem to be forgetting about: "social sciences" belong in the "soft sciences" so as to say and there's a different tone to them. Some would even dare saying, they aren't "science". Social theories the greatest example amongst these. I'm not defending science or attacking it, but I have failed to connect your arguments in a meaningful way. I still don't understand the point you have tried to make. alex.

Dark Inquisitor	20 Jan 2003
I could be wrong, but I think the point is to make us look at how society views the tarot , basically. To explore the type of subconscious "dirt" that has accumulated on our colorful little friend & make people react as they do to it. So far, in addition to the sin originally mentioned, I have noticed : Gypsy stereotypes- Gypsies are viewed as bad , ignorant, thieves, etc. Tarot is one of their tools, therefore bad & invalid- & rather shabby. Witchcraft- Witches are threatening & out of control. Society is not comfortable with you . You have opened a supernatural/historical can of worms. You use the tarot, you must be a witch. You are superstitious, backwards, & contributing to the downfall of Western Civilisation. Insanity- Tarot is seen as illogical, not rational. So if you are a user/believer in the tarot, you are nuts. You are not to be trusted. You might even be dangerous. Con artists - The consensus reality is that tarot cannot possibly work. So of course, people who read the tarot are just con artists who "read" your body language , & your responses to what they say. This has has an offshoot to it. If you go to a tarot reader, you are a fool, since they are con artists & everyone knows that but you. The Icarus association- Icarus in mythology dared to fly too close to the sun, & so was burned. By using the tarot , you are tempting fate. Interacting with forces you have no business dealing with as a mere mortal & no good can come of this. You are pompous & will be punished for interfering with the laws of God & Nature. Controlling Destiny- Because you read the tarot & tell people the future, you are also controlling it. You are telling people what is going to happen & therefore changing what would have happened naturally. Or, because you told someone about it & it happened, you are the cause of it. Stupidity- Since everyone knows tarot is not "real" , you must be incredibly stupid and probably obsessed. Poor thing! You will fall for anything & it's only a matter of time before something even worse happens to you. The Bringer of Evil- Tarot is evil, therefore , you are bringing evil to your yourself & your family. You are a heedless wanton person who will not listen to others and who just does not care that you are cursing all your descendants, etc. Bad things are going to happen & it's all your fault. Not very pleasant, is it? Hard to believe , but all those attitudes are still alive & well. Tarotphelia

MeeWah	20 Jan 2003
Tarotphelia: Thanks for expressing the nitty-gritty so well! That is a well-thought synopsis of associations with Tarot that details the elements that have manifested throughout known history.

Dark Inquisitor	20 Jan 2003
Thank you for your kind words, MeeWah! After I wrote that, it rather depressed me to see it all in a list & realize some people might be viewing me/us as all those things at once. Tarotphelia

Alex	20 Jan 2003
I just don't understand what's the need to employ some complicate social theory of the 80's to explain a prejudice. So I guessed, I must have missed something in his whole argument. Thanks for your list, it's somewhat depressing. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Tarotphelia I could be wrong, but I think the point is to make us look at how society views the tarot , basically. To explore the type of subconscious "dirt" that has accumulated on our colorful little friend & make people react as they do to it. Tarotphelia

Centaur	20 Jan 2003
Hey Alex, Just thought that I would post the theory on the boards since it is a pet of mine hehe. And also, I thought it tied in nicely with tarot and it's associations. I wanted to find out what every one else thought - after all, this section is entitled 'Talking Tarot'. I'll get back to your post in more detail later. I am a busy bee at the moment! Cheers Centaur

patter	20 Jan 2003
I see a few 'knee jerk' reactions here on a par with 'sinful tarot' Video games are bad TV is bad Scientist are arrogant and homophobic. As a queer game-playing TV-watching scientist [i kid you not] I feel obliged to say that other peoples predjudices are easier to see than our own.

MeeWah	20 Jan 2003
Tarotphelia: I think I know the feeling...however, I would rather know what I am looking at/up against than going blythely on my way only to get sideswiped/ambushed. It pays to be an informed consumer--on all levels! Patter: I am sure we all have our prejudices that are not evident until something brings them to the fore. Or in hindsight.

Centaur	20 Jan 2003
I would have to agree with you. It's much more easier to see other people's prejudices than to acknowledge that we have any ourselves. Centaur

Alex	20 Jan 2003
day when a human being will not be allowed to express any oppinion because everything will be taken as prejudice and generalization. Unfortunately for us, because that's the way our mind has operated so far: making generalizations. I don't go to NY Ave by myself at night cause it's dangerous. It does not mean that every single minute will be dangerous, that every person at NY Ave is a murder or cocaine dealer, but I still don't go to NY ave at night. Alex.

Centaur	20 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex I fear the approaching day when a human being will not be allowed to express any oppinion because everything will be taken as prejudice and generalization. Prejudice 'an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, esp. when formed without enough thought or knowledge' Cambridge International Dictionary of English I think that there comes a point where the notion of prejudice just becomes ridiculous, e.g. 'I detest beans because they cause flatulence'. I don't think that it is unreasonable to state that you do not wish to walk down a dangerous street at night, because there are drug dealers or whatever (hookers, and pimps, blah de blah etc). I don't think you are being prejudiced. Obviously, you have good reason to believe that it would be dangerous to walk down that street late at night, i.e. the fact that it is common sense not to walk down that street late at night, after all, who would want to get attacked? Not me!! Also, you are not making a generalisation by stating that you would not wish to walk down a dangerous street late at night. You are merely acknowledging the fact that there may be drug dealers etc on that street. You are not accusing EVERYONE on that street of being drug dealers. Prejudice as defined above means making an uninformed statement about something. Obviously, you ARE informed, when you choose not to walk down a dangerous street. Whether that be by newspaper articles about people being attacked down dark streets at night, or advice from friends etc. Ofcourse, you could argue that you are generalising that all dark streets are the same. But I think this is a bit like saying that one does not drive with one's headlights on, because they do not wish to generalise that they might run someone down on the street. We generalise all the time, but some generalisations keep our asses clean!

Centaur	20 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex How does the example mentioned above differ from an example of "learned behaviour"? (which needs not to imply a theory of it's own, it's part of the regular current psychological paradigm) Again, what's really new to this theory that is not explained by the available theories on how culture/environment affects one's identity, beliefs and psychological development? I'm trying to understand your point but unfortunately it's not very clear to me. [/b][/quote] What examples of learned behaviour do you mean? And what theories of culture's impact upon the psychological development of the individual do you mean? The standard psychological version of learned behaviour is of the stimulus leads to response variety. It is very static. Stimulus occurs - response happens. There is no in-between. There is no dynamic interaction between society/culture and the individual. It is highly individualistic and very reductionist. The individual is a unit that is studied outside the context of his or her environment, within an experimental setting. The role of culture and society is often down-played; the sole focus of this type of psychology, the individual in his or her purest form. Social representations theory prefers to view learned behaviour as a dynamic interplay between stimulus---culture/society----and response. It is always happening. It is not static. There is an in-between and it's importance must be acknowledged. It is highly collectivist and positivist. The role of culture and society is valued and the interaction between cultural and societal ideas, beliefs, and values and the individual is considered to be intergral to that person's psychology. That is the difference between social representation theory and other theories of learned behaviour within psychology. Culture and society are taken seriously. Forgive me if I explained it poorly, but social representation theory views scientific knowledge and lay knowledge to be two types of knowledge within the context of its own theory. They circulate within society in the same way; cultural images, knowledge, and beliefs. They ARE just two systems of knowledge. Firstly, scientific knowledge is empirical knowledge, and lay knowledge is more like folk knowledge. Science is not method. Methods are what science uses in order to ascertain certain knowledge about the world. Just like lay people use certain methods to find out certain knowledge about the world, e.g. asking a friend or reading a newspaper. Also, I am not stating that everything that science says is 'true' is true. At which point did I mention that? I was trying to demonstrate that social representations are all around us. I was not making a comment as to the 'right' or 'wrongness' of any of these forms of knowledge. You also state that I am forgetting that the social sciences are in the 'soft sciences'. Yet you do not back this up with hard evidence. I'm afraid that is a matter of opinion. Ofcourse, we cannot dissect human behaviour in the same manner as we can talk about an atom. I don't even view the whole 'soft' and 'hard' science argument as an issue. Within myself, I value the theory I work with, and am confident in its applicability and usefulness as applied to real world problems, e.g. health promotion campaigns, and condom use etc. Phew. I feel that I have detracted from tarot in order to prove my point. Anyway, if you need any further clarification of what I was talking about, then read Tarotphelia's post. And if that fails, then send me a private. See ya! PS. I am not trying to shove this theory down people's throats. I was merely describing it for discussion.

HOLMES	20 Jan 2003
this phrase comes to mind in great balls of fire "if i'm going to hell, i'm going playing the piano" dennis quaid as jerry lee lewis remember ? when rock and roll was the devil music ? and look how much it has changed the world. so if the tarot is the cards of sins, "if i;m going to hell, i;m going to hell reading the tarot. " eheh seriously i know i am a channel but there are times when my old church upbringing pop into mind. satan worshiper, witch, ( i know the last one was from my own reserve, witch) and so i know that it is out of ignorance, that such comments are made. and so the answer is this, once a person rocks, they know it is powerful soul music on the primitive levle ( or the way some people play the guiter on the highest level) and so once a person studies the tarot, and get to know it,, any sinful assocations get thrown out with misconceptions. least i like to think they do ,:O)

DarkChild	20 Jan 2003
i may not have to much to contribute, and u may not agree with me, but this is my two cents: i think people refer to Tarot as being evil or coming from the devil because they've been conditioned to think that, and or they have had a bad experience with it and they think that its all like their one bad experience. It also has a lot to do with the fear of the unknown. its just like anything else, when something is diffrent, people fear it because they don't know it. The only thing most people know about tarot is that it has connection with the occult, they have many misconseptions regarding the tarot. Most people beleive that it was the occult who came up with tarot, and they don't know what it was before the Occult started useing it. Most people don't know that it was origanaly used as a card game by nobles in the 15th century, and was not used by the gypsies or the occult until the 20th century. Or that the original tarot was based off christian culture of the time. And because the Church has put so much negitivity on the Occult, and have said that people who are in the occult are satanic its because of this that people ignore all the positive things coming from tarot and only consintrate on the negitive portions of tarot. its just like anything else, no matter how many good atributes someone or somthing has, if it has just one bad thing about it everybody ignores all the good things about it and concintrated on the bad. its all about human conditioning and fear of the unknown. this may be totally off the subject....... People compair the occult and wicca (witches) all the time, most people beleive that they're the same thing and its all satanic. And all those people who think that are wrong. Still, its all based on human conditioning and fear of the unknown.

Alex	20 Jan 2003
It's just taht we are coming to a point where many people can't see the difference between an oppinion and prejudice. Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 I think that there comes a point where the notion of prejudice just becomes ridiculous, e.g. 'I detest beans because they cause flatulence'.

Centaur	20 Jan 2003
Alex - I think prejudices are so intertwined with opinions that it would be difficult to separate them out. I dunno. I see what you mean though - in some cases an opinion can be misconstrued as having prejudices, as in the case of the beans. God, i'm talking about beans now. I have totally lost it! Darkchild - I think what you said about people's reaction to the unknown is very true. People find the unknown threatening so they try and rationalise it in a way that they can understand, and if that means attributing it to evil, and the devil etc etc, then it's just something that we have to deal with.

firemaiden	20 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES remember ? when rock and roll was the devil music ? You mean its not???? JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!! I mean sort of..well actually, let me explain: it is not a prejudice of mine to wish to turn of the blaring radio, it is a gut reaction. I just hate it. I have always hated it. It makes me want to puke and hit people. Why??? I don't know, I was born this way. So, having said that about Rock Music, lets say just for the sake of argument for a one minute, that some of our opponents are not reacting against the tarot out of learned prejudice, but rather out of gut fear, out of instinct. First of all, you know my position, speaking as an aethest, I think if someone is scared of the tarot and thinks to read is somehow to invoke the devil, that means they BELIEVE in the devil, and you might as well forget trying to have any kind of rational conversation with them. ON THE OTHER HAND, speaking as the "devil's advocate" again, (excuse me for shouting), let me leave all belief or lack of it aside: in dreams, I have moments of terror, where I realize, While my waking mind does not accept the existence of spirits, my dreaming mind doesn't give a fig for what I believe or disbelieve, and I have these moments of terror when evil spirits come to try to get me to follow them. For those of you who read the cards via intuitive or psychic flashes rather than through repertorying rote learned meanings, I am sure that you know what I mean. Haven't you all had moments of terror, while you were just getting to meet and learn to heed this voice? moments of distrust? wondering, where on earth (or where the hell!) does this voice come from???? I think my experience of terror in spirit dreams is the kind of fear that our opponents feel. Christians (some of my best friends are Christians...hahah) seem to spend a great deal of time worrying about defeating evil spirits. I know, my boyfriend's pal Pablo is an exorcist without a license. I wanted to throw him out of my house when he said I had the devil in me, and he started a ritual chanting of prayers in Spanish... I think religion exists to give structure and organization to the unknown so our imagination does not destroy us. On these nights when spirit dreams frighten me, I figure, I should fight the imagination with the imagination, and so I wear the cross my catholic boyfriend gave me! It helps! And then, there is another matter of identity and partiality. Let's say we both believe in spirit entities; what if your spirits are good to you, but evil to me! In the Illiad, the Greek Gods take sides, helping some warriors and hindering others, while fighting amonst eachother as well. In the Ring of the Niebelungs, it doesn't look good for Siegmund when Fricka is mad at Wotan! So back to our hostile believer, he may fear, that if you are in touch with mysterious forces in the universe which don't belong in his prescribed repertory of saints and angels, they probably wont be in his favor. And how many wars have been fought over Gods?

HudsonGray	20 Jan 2003
"remember ? when rock and roll was the devil music ?" Weren't the BeeGees once banned from the White House for their music? Laughable now, but taken seriously back then. "Haven't you all had moments of terror, while you were just getting to meet and learn to heed this voice? moments of distrust? wondering, where on earth (or where the hell!) does this voice come from???? " Actually............to this I have to say 'no'. It was such a part of me that when I started listening to it instead of automatically tuning it out, I was just adapting to my instinctive side. No terror at all.

jmd	21 Jan 2003
ah yes... the crepitatory effects of faba vulgaris! Here, 'anchoring' and 'objectification' certainly lead to thoughts worthy of digestion. I suppose that these two central concepts within Moscovici's explanatory theory certainly provide good and simple (though not simplistic) anchors by which to look into the social phenomena of Tarot - even if, through this, certain essential characteristics go amiss. So according to the insights provided, when we first meet Tarot, we seek to anchor it within an existing framework: how does it fit into my existing views of the world? Next, its objectification will occur as we justify its anchoring by using it when faced with relevent situations. In broader social context, this is reflected in the media, which tends to re-inforce particular forms of anchoring, which in turn accentuates further limited 'objectifications'. I remember not long ago the call for the re-claiming of the term 'Witch' by some, rather than favouring the more neutral 'Wiccan'. Here, part of the call, I suspect, was to increase a particular objectification of the way the term had been anchored differently by a minority than the majority, with the view of (slowly) re-anchoring the term by the majority in the shores of waters more tolerable. This does have quite important implications for us too - for if Tarot is, in our views, inappropriately anchored by others, its objectification (ie, its representation in the broader social community) may mis-represent our understanding and appreciation of Tarot. Again thanks for the links, centaur20.

Alex	21 Jan 2003
even though I'll stop here because it's getting off topic, I'll make this point: A discussion is not an exchange of agreements. Discussing a topic involves asking for clarification, disagreing, pointing what is not clear, true or where oppinions diverge. As long as we don't make personal and offensive comments, a *real* discussion can only enrich the ones involved. One important thing to remember is to leave the "ego" aside because when we are found to be wrong, we gain the opportunity to learn something, IF we can prevent our egos from being hurt that way. Thanks, Centaur20 for your reply. I appreciate that you've taken the time and effort to write it. My very bests Alex. Quote: Originally posted by centaur20 PS. I am not trying to shove this theory down people's throats. I was merely describing it for discussion. [/b][/quote]

Laurel	21 Jan 2003
This is a marvelous thread. Centaur, I will have to print out your and JMD's comments and read them offlist, away from work before I could have anything pertinent to contribute (and whenever I say I'm going to do this, I never do *s*). I have one question now, and that is how did social representations evolve in historical human development, within this theory? I am currently (and very, very, very slowly) working my way through a book called _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ by Julien Jaynes, which has gotten me curious in a general way not only in how the human psyche works, but how it came to work the way it does. I'm also, on my own, looking at how (and why) the way we use/treat tarot has evolved since the 14th century and would be very interested in seeing something on the evolution of general Western social representations that might shed some light onto the phenomenon. ~LAS

Centaur	21 Jan 2003
Hey Laurel, I am slightly confused as to what you ask. Do you mean where does the theory of social representations see itself within its own theory? And how did the theory evolve itself as a social representation? Your study into tarot sounds very interesting indeed. I hope you will keep us posted as to any developments! Perhaps we could even discuss issues raised by your study in a separate thread; it would give you an idea of contemporary society and the way it constructs tarot and tarot reading. Please tell us more of your study.

The Tarot and its associations... thread was originally posted on 17 Jan 2003 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.