Basil Bernstein was succinctly paraphrased by Atkinson when the latter wrote that “ritualized language use is highly predictable. In the most extreme case, the language may be entirely predictable. Or at least, such predictability is culturally required: deviations from the prescribed forms will be negatively sanctioned and the social occasion regarded as spoiled. There is no room here, socially speaking, for significant innovation. The innovator in such a context is deviant—perhaps heretical” (2002, 62)

A heretic, a disruptor, a rebel, a whistle-blower, an “enfant terrible”, a critic, a trickster, an anarchist, a maverick or a “dwarsligger” is someone who offers deviations during our collective unwillingness to relationally learn. The latter, “dwarsligger” is crudely translatable from Dutch as a hinderer, or an obstructionist. Yet, possibly it is better trans-coded as that strong crossbeam, supporting the rails carrying us collectively. Or, it is a book printed parallel to its spine

By observers these roles are too often assumed as having a plethora of “fun” to kick the quiet, & internally-perceived as well-functioning, hornets’ nest. Sure, to the hornet, the hornet is peaceful & abiding. To the hornet these external characters had best remain a mere aesthetic yet quiet, “sois belle et tais-toi”

The perceived proverbial kick these beauties can administer is not necessarily provided in “fun” nor is it indented to destroy universality of peace, nor create chaos. Many of these actors are non-violent & find civility in high-dimensional order

Hear this folks, self-reflection & reflection can lead to uncomfortable observations that require a movement out of a status quo, or in other words, out of a comfort zone into a liminal space of je ne sais pas quoi. It can happen on one’s sofa yet, it will jolt the spine

Of course, by the hornets these uncomfortable characters are too easily equated with chaos or violence; wrongfully so. In effect, the equation is a violent act of denial & character assassination; perhaps heretically so (Ibid). It is especially odd to see these words (chaos, anarchist & violence) equated in European or North-American setting while these same societies call for innovation & human transformation

After-all, how would this collection of diverse agents fit within the networked social fabric & its relational learning processes? How is relational learning stacked if not transformational & somewhat unsettling? That’s for humans: you, me, us

Now, how do some of the digital social network algorithms compare? Could it be, just as by some of their makers, that algorithms too equate human proverbial “crossbeams,” not with a solid ride but rather, with undesired disruption? Please your reader (ie use their language) or be technologically regarded as spoiling the social event

Any transformation had best come as conscious nuanced co-interrupting contextualizing humane acts forward

Reference:

Basil Bernstein via Atkinson, P.(2002). “Language, Structure, Reproduction: an Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein.” New York: Methuen & Co via Taylor & Francis e-Library. (p.62).

Continuing on that same page the author and the referenced author continue with interesting insights on “tradition” which I believe to find among proverbial hornets or their upsetting characters alike. Yes, I intuit that the innovator too will expose those who are deviating the “innovation”, as heretic. Ah, our species has so many human relational areas to transform.

An extra, rather tautological, quote from page 62:

“There is no such thing as a perfectly frozen, unchanging ‘tradition’ which is perfectly transmitted from generation to generation in unmodified forms” (Ibid).