Friday August 15, 2008
In my former home of Birmingham, if you want to meet up with anyone in the city centre, the usual meeting place is “by the bull”, which is to say, by the sculpture that stands outside of the Bullring shopping centre in the middle of town.
The sculpture – think of a cuddlier version of the more famous Wall Street Bull, and you can’t go far wrong – was unveiled in 2003 when the shopping centre opened, and was designed by sculptor Laurence Broderick (whose website you can see here). Since its unveiling, it has been adopted as an unofficial mascot by the people of Birmingham.
Back in 2005, two years after it was unveiled, the bull was vandalised. Somebody scratched their name in the side with a sharp object. What happened next was extraordinary. Mysteriously, almost overnight, offerings appeared at the foot of the sculpture – piles of flowers, cards, offerings of condolence. Now, whatever the folks who run the shopping centre might have made thought, these were not offerings made to the authorities responsible for the bull, but instead were made towards the bull itself. There, in the middle of Birmingham’s most modern monument to capitalism, a bizarre ancient ritual seemed to suddenly be played out, like a flickering memory of ancient bull cults. I remember looking at the flowers and the cards, the poems that ordinary people had written to the bronze animal, and coming across one that simply said, “If I had been here, I would not have let them hurt you.”
That phrase – I would not have let them hurt you – addressed to a piece of metal fashioned into the shape of a bull has stayed with me. The bull was restored to its former glory, and when I am back in Birmingham and want to meet up with friends, it will be by the bull that I will arrange to meet. And even if I do not make it offerings or write it poems, as I pass by, I will probably, without thinking, pat its flank in a friendly fashion. Other people do this as well. You can sit and watch them. Some even talk to it. Under their breath, of course, so people don’t think them strange, but they talk to it.
What is going on with all of this? The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that we spend a lot more time than we think speaking with inanimate things. I say “speaking with” and not “speaking to” deliberately, because there is a sense – an obscure sense, perhaps, but a sense nonetheless – in which when we speak with inanimate things, they speak back. Or, at the very least, they sort-of speak back.
I have been thinking about the bull again in part because of having just read Miguel Tamen’s strange and difficult book Friends of Interpretable Objects, which is about the way that we “gather around various bits and pieces of the same world [like metal bulls, for example], attributing them intentions, dispositions and even languages”. Tamen’s argument – winding its way along various circuitous paths through theology, jurisprudence, ethics, museum studies, and history – explores the way that we gather ourselves into communities and speak with and for various parts of the world. What he is exploring, that is to say, is interpretation, which he neatly defines as the “process of attributing language and intentionality to objects”. Much of what we do, in our relationship with the world, is this process of attributing language and intentionality to all kinds of things, from metal bulls (“poor bull… they must have hurt you”), to states (“it is in the interests of the United Kingdom”), to religions (“Buddhism says that…”), to parts of the ‘natural’ environment (“We must protect the interests of the rainforest…”).
Tamen’s argument is subtle, but is rooted in the claim that interpretation is not a matter of cracking some kind of pre-existing code that lies hidden in a set of objects that are especially “interpretable”, but that instead it is something that can be best understood as happening within a “society of friends” – friends, that is to say, of the thing to be interpreted. If this is an accurate picture of what goes on in interpretation, it also implies that between various societies of friends what may count as interpretable may differ. My Great Aunt Ida (and at least one of her societies of friends) used to believe that things like tea leaves counted as interpretable, whilst I am not so sure.
I am less interested, however, in what Tamen’s book has to say about philosophical questions of interpretation, and more in what it brings to light about what goes on in our relationship to the world (although, of course, these two are not unconnected). When the people of Birmingham, with no prompting, lay offerings of flowers and poems at the foot of a wounded (wounded and not just damaged? Why do I find myself writing this?) metal bull, Tamen’s approach gives us a way of thinking about what is going on without having to dismiss the people of Birmingham, in the fashion of certain less imaginative humanist-rationalists, as superstitious fools. Of course, if you asked the people offering flowers or poems whether the bull, as a piece of metal, could feel pain, they would say no. But that does not make the offerings nonsensical. After all, if it is superstitious to attribute intentionality and language to objects that do not, in fact, have such things, then the cases in which we attribute intentionality and language to states and governments (“this government believes…”), to courts (“this court decides…”), to religions (“Buddhism absolutely forbids…”), and to corporations of various kinds (“the University of Pudsey announces…”) are also, in a sense, superstitious.
After reading Friends of Interpretable Objects, I’ve found myself noticing the extent to which I and others around me speak with and on behalf of various parts of the world, as a matter of course, scarcely giving it another thought. When I take a particularly impressive cabbage out of the grocery bag and say “hello cabbage” (as I caught myself doing yesterday), I do not think that the cabbage can hear, nor do I expect it to say “hello” in return; but something is going on, something that is not a million miles from the offering of flowers to a metal bull, or from the offering of deference to the idea of the law, or from the tendency to speak in the name of a grand abstraction such as “Buddhism”, or from all the other curious things that we human beings get up to in our lives…
So finally, if you are reading this in Birmingham, next time you pass the bull, given him a pat on my behalf, and send him my best wishes.
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
The Worst Type of Buddhist: Saturday June 16, 2007
Damn those ignorant Buddhists…
Things Worth Knowing: Friday August 7, 2009
The stuff we know (or claim to know) and a few thoughts on ethics.
Meditating and Knowing: Sunday January 3, 2010
The limits of the mind, and meditation.
The Wisdom of the Ancients?: Friday May 29, 2009
Golden ages, and the magnificence of the past.
What's It All About?: Wednesday March 11, 2009
Something about something…
Knot: Saturday May 16, 2009
Interpretation, and what makes a classic?
Get Real...: Friday May 15, 2009
Some thoughts on tragic storytelling.
The Dull Monk in the Third Row Theory of the Evolution of Buddhist Doctrine: Tuesday October 18, 2005
Are we too pious in our reading of Buddhist texts?
Reflections on Sociality and Solitude: Thursday June 29, 2006
Thoughts on solitude and friendship.
Not: Thursday February 5, 2009
Thoughts on the Heart Sutra.
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.