Ellen Dissanayake, "The Core of Art: Making Special"

Questions for Making Questions within the Reading

1. What does Dissanayake mean when she writes that "in the contemporary West" we have been "preoccupied with and confused about art, seduced by it, expecting miracles from it, alternately feeling elevated or dispirited by it, feeling somewhat betrayed if not altogether scorned"? What is an "ethological view" and how might it alter our thinking about art?

2. Dissanayake contrasts traditional societies to their postmodern, postindustrial counterparts. Why might the arts play such different roles in the two? What conclusions have philosophers and theorists drawn on the basis of these differences? What conclusions has Dissanayake drawn?

3. One popular school of thought in our time is known as "sociobiology," which holds that human behavior can be explained in strictly biological terms. For many sociobiologists, the real purpose of all human behavior is the perpetuation of our genes, while our personal aspirations and cultural values have a secondary importance. Given this definition, does Dissanayake qualify as a sociobiologist? How does she view the relation between biological forces and human culture?

Questions for Writing

1. On the basis of your own experience and background knowledge, what assumptions about "art" and "artists" do we ordinarily make? Are those assumptions closer to the outlook held by specialized philosophers of the arts, or do they come closer to "ethological view" that Dissanayake explores in her book?

2. For the last two hundred years, philosophers of aesthetics have emphasized the purposeless and playful character of art--art for art's sake. Why does this way of thinking pose a problem for those, like Dissanayake, who view human behavior from the standpoint of the natural sciences? What difference does it make which view of art one takes? That is, what are the consequences of accepting one version of art's purpose rather than another?

Questions for Making Connections between Readings

1. What is play and why do humans engage in it? If play is as instructive as Petroski claims and as essential to creativity as Dissanayake claims, why does it occupy such a limited place in the educational system? Can one engage in play while thinking? Can one be taught to play? To be creative? Drawing on the work of Henry Petroski and Dissanayake, discuss the role of play in human development.

2. Are the Bedouin, as described by Lila Abu-Lughod in "Honor and Shame," an example of a "traditional society" in Dissanayake's terms? Does Abu-Lughod's account call into question Dissanayake's largely positive assessment of traditional societies? What losses follow from the passing of traditional societies? What gains have followed? By self-consciously changing the course of her life in "Honor and Shame," is Kamla participating in the activity of "making special" or is she just giving in to the attractions of the material world?

More Dissanayake assignments...