[Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sun Mar 23 01:10:26 PDT 2014
why do you say "pace Hegel" Greg?
andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Greg Thompson wrote:
> David,
> Yes, you caught what I was saying in your parenthetical. My point was that
> Vera nicely lays out and critiques the dominant view of creativity - i.e.
> the one where creativity is anti-social.
>
> And I'd add that in my reading of Bakhtin, I have difficulty imagining him
> as a childist, not because of his disdain for children (a topic of which I
> had no knowledge prior to your post), but because I see him as drawing on a
> different understanding of human subjectivity - one that draws from a
> tradition that is not about the intrinsic flowering of the individual but
> rather is about the imbricated emergence of an individual who is shot
> through / consummated by others. (pace Hegel, imho).
>
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:00 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Greg--
>>
>> Actually, I think of Vera's work as precisely the opposite of an
>> anti-social theory of creativity (but perhaps that is just what you
>> meant to say?). Vera's work on creative collaborations, for example,
>> stresses that in and alongside every famous creative voice there is at
>> least one and probably many more equally creative voices. It seems so
>> obvious to me, when I read Tolstoy, that I am really hearing the voice
>> of his wife, and not just when the female characters speak; I cannot
>> be surprised that nothing he wrote after the crackup of his marriage
>> measures up to War and Peace or Anna K. Of course, the social medium
>> of art cannot be reduced to the interpersonal in this way; but I think
>> Vera would say that the tragedy of our artists is that it often must
>> be.
>>
>> Actually, reading over what I wrote, I discovered with some chagrin
>> that, your kind comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not
>> particularly well framed. As usual, I have left far too much daylight
>> between the mounting and the canvas. The Halliday quote fits
>> reasonably well but that is mostly thanks to him not me. But I meant
>> to say that Bakhtin's ideas were being portrayed at the conference as
>> being thoroughly "childist" and this childism was, according to many
>> speakers (e.g. Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane and others) what
>> made Bakhtin preferable to Vygotsky (even though everybody has now
>> admitted that Bakhtin was, personally, a bit of a scoundrel, not least
>> for the way he treated HIS partners in dialogue, Voloshinov and
>> Medvedev).
>>
>> This I found inexplicable. How can anyone read Bakhtin (who appears to
>> have loathed children and who certainly wrote that child's play had
>> neither a moral nor an aesthetic dimension) as a childist? But the
>> comments of Mike and Andy, on how creativity is being set out as a
>> kind of "Weak Utopianism" (to quote Michael Gardiner's phrase), make a
>> certain sense of this nonsense. The collapse of the USSR is to be
>> taken as a collapse of the cultural-historical in psychology as well.
>> Henceforth, the social is to be reduced to the interpersonal, and the
>> creative society to the clever society of one.
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>
>>
>> On 23 March 2014 14:29, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>> Loved your framing of this as "Anti-social creativity". This is the model
>>> of creativity in much of the West! (cf. Vera John-Steiner's work). It's
>>> everywhere. Read that biography of Steve Jobs - wait, no don't do that...
>>>
>>> Also, fascinating (and sad) to hear about how capitalism is wrenching
>>>
>> older
>>
>>> workers in Korea. Sounds to me like "Abstract labor" concretized! (i.e.,
>>> here is the concrete manifestation of "abstract labor" - labor viewed in
>>> the abstract - one worker is as good as another regardless of who that
>>> laborer is).
>>>
>>> Nothing is sacred with capitalism, seems another "Chinese wall" is
>>> crumbling under the weighty flow of global capital...
>>>
>>> Very sad (and I suspect that those older workers never knew what hit
>>>
>> them -
>>
>>> they certainly didn't expect it).
>>> -greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> As you probably know, Korea is currently run by the neomilitaristic
>>>> scion of the previous dictator, who took power in a transparently
>>>> rigged election. No, I don't mean that Korea--I mean this one.
>>>>
>>>> Park Geunhye, the daughter of our former dictator Park Cheonghi, came
>>>> to power about a year ago, first by stealing the opposition's clothes
>>>> (to be fair, they made it very easy for her by having such a very
>>>> unambitious programme to begin with). The National Intelligence
>>>> Service then flooded the country with highly creative Tweets alleging
>>>> that her opponents were soft on communism, one of those new
>>>> mobilizations of social media that you may not have heard so much
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, to make a short story long, having stolen the opposition's
>>>> clothes, she is now obliged to renege on her promises in the interests
>>>> of those who financed her campaign. Now, part of this involves
>>>> reneging on a massive programme of social welfare that Koreans
>>>> desperately wanted (they deposed the mayor of Seoul in the interests
>>>> of keeping a free lunch programme, for example). But surely, one must
>>>> put something in the place of a promise of pensions, job creation
>>>> schemes, minimum wage, etc, mustn't one?
>>>>
>>>> No, not really--all you have to do is babble and blather about a new
>>>> "creativity-driven economy". The "creativity driven economy" is a
>>>> pleasant way of referring to a highly unpleasant fact of life. In
>>>> South Korea, where we nominally respect the elderly (and we certainly
>>>> pay them more than the young) it soon becomes cheaper to employ four
>>>> or five young people rather than one older one. This means,
>>>> necessarily, booting out older workers around age fifty and hiring
>>>> younger ones to replace them. The older workers (and, for that atter,
>>>> younger ones who cannot find unemployment) are then given a little
>>>> handout and encouraged to "create" their own jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, for this to work (as a scam, I mean, it's obviously a
>>>> non-starter as a social welfare scheme), one really has to try to
>>>> inculcate the kind of "every man for himself" mentality that people
>>>> have in other countries, and that is really a bit of a poser in a
>>>> country which, although highly stratified socially, is still very
>>>> collectivistic culturally. That is where education comes in.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the folllowing quotation from Halliday (2004, the Language of
>>>> Early Childhood, p. 251):
>>>>
>>>> "Much of the discussion of chlidren's language development in the last
>>>> quarter of a century (Halliday is writing in 1991--DK), especially in
>>>> educational contexts, has been permeated by a particular ideological
>>>> construction of childhood. This view combines individualism,
>>>> romanticism, and what Martin calls 'childism', the Disneyfied vision
>>>> of a child that is constructed in the media and in certain kinds of
>>>> kiddielit. Each child is presented as a freestanding, autonomous
>>>> being; and learning consists in releasing and brining into flower the
>>>> latent awareness that is already there in the bud. This is the view
>>>> that was embodied in the 'creativity' and 'personal growth' models of
>>>> education by James Britton, John Dixon, and David Holbrook in Great
>>>> Britain; and more recently, from another standpoint, in the United
>>>> States in Donald Graves' conception of chldren's writing as process
>>>> and of their texts as property to be individually owned. It has been
>>>> supported theoretically first by Chomskyaninnatism and latterly by
>>>> cognitive science models which interpret learning as the acquisition
>>>> of ready0made information by some kind of independent process device."
>>>> (I omit Halliday's references).
>>>>
>>>> My wife and I recently attended the Dialogic Pedagogy conference on
>>>> Bakhtin in New Zealand where these "childist" ideas were very much in
>>>> evidence, and where they were explicitly opposed to Vygotskyan ones!
>>>> At first I found this opposition rather bizarre, not least because I
>>>> had recently reviewed an excellent piece of work by our own
>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth for the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal. Roth's piece,
>>>> which you can read in the DPJ archive, had argued for the
>>>> compatibility of Bakhtin and Vygotsky (on theoretical grounds it is
>>>> true). There was also a very fine presentation by Michael Gardiner on
>>>> Bakhtin, the autonomists, and the 99/1% discourse surrounding the
>>>> Occupy movement.
>>>>
>>>> Now I am starting to understand a little better. There is, actually, a
>>>> model of creativity out there which is individualistic,
>>>> entrepreneurial, anti-socialist, and even anti-social. The problem is,
>>>> it's also anti-creativity.
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
>>>>
>>>> On 23 March 2014 04:26, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy,
>>>>> Your comment:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Avram, I am not convinced that creating niche economies can in any
>>>>>
>> way
>>
>>>>> ameliorate the domination of big capital. We have to find a way to
>>>>> penetrate and subvert the sources of capitalist exploitation, rather
>>>>>
>> than
>>
>>>>> offering "alternatives,"
>>>>>
>>>>> suggests there may be ways to potentially penetrate and subvert "at
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> source" rather than act to *create* alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have wondered if my utopian sympathies which show my curiosity with
>>>>> exploring *alternatives* can be viewed as *living experiments* or
>>>>>
>> *living
>>
>>>>> laboratories* where alternative life styles and attitudes are
>>>>>
>> generated
>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> lived.
>>>>> It must be my personal experiences with *alternate communities* which
>>>>>
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> attempted to actualize their ideal alternatives. I must admit, most of
>>>>> these experiments are failures. However Cultural Historical Theory
>>>>> developed in an *alternate setting* and Dewey and Mead in Chicago
>>>>>
>>>> gathered
>>>>
>>>>> together a committed group with shared ideals.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to penetrate capitalism *at its source* may require
>>>>>
>>>> demonstrating
>>>>
>>>>> other ways of life as experiments which express other *values*. Some
>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>> these alternative approaches will include *alternative community*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current discussion on the drift of *university departments*
>>>>> suggests alternative forms of gathering may need to come into
>>>>>
>> existence
>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> express alternative *values* However I also accept this *hope* may be
>>>>>
>>>> naïve
>>>>
>>>>> and not grounded in recognition of the depth of capitalist ideology
>>>>>
>> which
>>
>>>>> co-ops ALL utopian ideals. Therefore the requirement to subvert the
>>>>> *source*?
>>>>>
>>>>> To once again return to Alex Kozulin's book which is expressing a
>>>>>
>> theme.
>>
>>>>> He is exploring the *double-faceted* nature of consciousness and
>>>>>
>>>> suggests
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> "interpretive or metacognitive function [aspect?] of consciousness may
>>>>>
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> an AUTONOMY from REGULATIVE AND CONTROLLING functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if this *autonomy* can extend to *alternative communities*
>>>>>
>>>> forming
>>>>
>>>>> to express alternative *values*?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> One of the themes of the correlation you mention, Mike, is the focus
>>>>>>
>> on
>>
>>>>>> "the creative industries." There are theories about the way cities
>>>>>>
>> can
>>
>>>>>> escape from their rust-bucket depression by promoting "the creative
>>>>>> industries." These include software development (e.g. computer
>>>>>>
>> games),
>>
>>>>>> advertising, packaging and fashion. That's probably fine for urban
>>>>>>
>>>> renewal,
>>>>
>>>>>> except for the artists who get booted out of their old warehouses
>>>>>>
>> which
>>
>>>> get
>>>>
>>>>>> done up for the expected "creative industries," but where it's has a
>>>>>>
>> big
>>
>>>>>> negative impact in the academy is in the "critical sciences." People
>>>>>> involved in social and political criticism are suddenly faced with
>>>>>> imperatives to serve the "creative industries." So feminist,
>>>>>>
>>>> philosophical
>>>>
>>>>>> and political critiques, which were surviving by a thread, now have
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>> educate software makers who are building computer games or artists
>>>>>>
>> who
>>
>>>> are
>>>>
>>>>>> designing advertisements all in the name of needing to support the
>>>>>> "creative industries."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Avram, I am not convinced that creating niche economies can in any
>>>>>>
>> way
>>
>>>>>> ameliorate the domination of big capital. We have to find a way to
>>>>>> penetrate and subvert the sources of capitalist exploitation, rather
>>>>>>
>>>> than
>>>>
>>>>>> offering "alternatives," I think. Capitalism can do perfectly well
>>>>>>
>>>> without
>>>>
>>>>>> a certain percentage of the world's population who find an
>>>>>>
>>>> "alternative".
>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So my noticing of the fascination and promotion of "culture and
>>>>>>> creativity" discourse, design schools, and neoliberalism may be more
>>>>>>>
>>>> than a
>>>>
>>>>>>> symptom of failing eyesight?
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 21, 2014, Avram Rips <arips@optonline.net <mailto:
>>>>>>> arips@optonline.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is the connection between people alienated from
>>>>>>>
>> their
>>
>>>>>>> labor, or no labor and building a new democratic structure- that
>>>>>>> can happen in a small scale , and spread out to new modes of
>>>>>>> production away from the destruction of capital-such as chiapas
>>>>>>> and taking over factories in Argentina.
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <
>>>>>>>
>>>> ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>
>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:35 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it seems to me that the burgeoning inequality created
>>>>>>>
>> by
>>
>>>>>>> neoliberalism is a situation crying out for imaginative
>>>>>>>
>> social
>>
>>>>>>> entrepreneurship, i.e., social movement building. It is good
>>>>>>> to hear that the 1/99 protests have generated talk about
>>>>>>> inequality, but that in itself does not create a solution,
>>>>>>> does it?
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avram Rips wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Innovation and entrepreneurship in some ways means
>>>>>>> capital crowding out social space and solidarity. This
>>>>>>>
>> is
>>
>>>>>>> evident in cities-whole neighborhoods taken over by
>>>>>>> wealthy crafts people, and little focus on co-operative
>>>>>>> movements for working class people-where a new focus on
>>>>>>> participatory democracy can be developed ,and working
>>>>>>> class culture in the Gramscian sense. take care! Avram
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike cole"
>>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:31 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy--- My intent in the garbled sentence you query
>>>>>>> was to suggest that the
>>>>>>> discourse in the US around vicious inequalities has
>>>>>>> increased markedly in
>>>>>>> the past year in tandem with a kind of frenzy in
>>>>>>>
>> those
>>
>>>>>>> parts of academia I
>>>>>>> come in contact with about "design, culture, and
>>>>>>> creativity" all of which
>>>>>>> are linked to innovation and entrepreneurship. I
>>>>>>>
>> very
>>
>>>>>>> interested in the
>>>>>>> nature of imagination and creativity but I they
>>>>>>>
>> often
>>
>>>>>>> appear to be new code
>>>>>>> words for social and individual salvation in a lean,
>>>>>>> mean, neo-liberal
>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe just another of my confusions.
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike, could you clarify a little your comment
>>>>>>> below ...
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... My fear that is appearance is
>>>>>>> non-accidentally rated to explosion of
>>>>>>> concern about poverty/class (the 1%/99% idea
>>>>>>> has become ubiquitous in
>>>>>>> American
>>>>>>> discourse).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> Department of Anthropology
>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>> Brigham Young University
>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list