[Xmca-l] Re: Foucault

[Henry G. Shonerd III]

I should add, I'm just a sensitive guy. I can imagine some people saying, "Just get over it!!" or "Get a little resilience!" or "Fight back!" Drawing attention to my little nicks would embarrass me. We were brats who thought we would change the world. We were posturing. I don't mean the 60s youth movement was all bad, but some of it lacked grounding. I do suspect that my sense of injustice in the world is at least in part a projection of these "unresolved issues", maybe not a bad thing. But when all is said and done, I don't think I could remember enough detail to tell a good story, even if it were a good story. If I could remember it, it would be bathos. I could easily imagine, however, that others would have a different story, one worth telling.  

  
On Sep 18, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu> wrote:

> There you go Henry. You have touched on a vital topic
> that needs more attention. Your 60's experience provides
> a great back story for your passion against bullying.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Henry G. Shonerd III <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robert,
>> I have not and, off the top of my head, think it wouldn't be of great
>> interest to anyone else. Like I say, it's embarrassing to be on either end
>> of that kind of bullying. None of what happened to me was unforgivable,
>> though it has always made me very sensitive to bullying in ANY context,
>> especially between peers. It happens all the time in classrooms, in
>> schools. The small cuts, nicely fashioned to keep one in line. "Classroom
>> management" keeps a lid on it. Kids aren't naturally mean, it's learned. It
>> should be at the center of a dialog in schools that pretend to be
>> inclusive. I think of "multicultural" courses for student teachers focused
>> on gender, class, race, religion, are ABOUT bullying but not praxis, at
>> least from my own experience trying to teach it to student teachers. I was
>> part of the problem, though I think I taught the courses in good faith. I'm
>> pretty sure that's at the root of the dialog we are having here: How to
>> have it in schools. Well, really throughout society. What's good for kids
>> is good for adults. ZPD rules!
>> Henry
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Henry,
>>> Have you written of your '60's experiences anywhere?
>>> If not you might consider it.
>>> RL
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Henry G. Shonerd III <
>> hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mike,,
>>>> A little historical ontology of myself. I was in Berkeley and Cuba with
>>>> the Weathermen in the 60s when we were thinking in terms of a critique
>> of
>>>> not just A culture, but CULTURE: Che, revolution. Middle class white
>> kids
>>>> mostly, we even thought we might be willing to die to make a better
>> world,
>>>> like Che. Mostly we hurt each other's feelings trying to decide whose
>>>> consciousness was highest. It's embarrassing to talk about it. Now I'm a
>>>> retired education prof working as a sub in two great charter schools in
>>>> Albuquerque, breaking good. Reading the XMA/XMCA dialog, I find much
>> better
>>>> grounding than consciousness raising sessions of the 60s, and I find
>>>> Bloch's optimism (See Andy's website) warranted. Like the song goes: I'm
>>>> still willin'. I have been scrambling to catch up on the thinking of
>>>> "academic" giants as I read your posts, convinced you wouldn't post
>> them if
>>>> you didn't think they were important for this dialog. In other words I
>>>> trust this dialog as it looks back. I understand Mike's problem with
>>>> posting the Amy and Jed talk, though I think it is helpful that we have
>>>> taken on the messiness of the moment. It's looking forward, the Novum,
>>>> where I find my optimism. I don't think it's crazy to think that CHAT
>> can
>>>> be "popularized",  can be part of changing popular narratives. I love
>>>> Vygotsky because he worked so feverishly, with others, to make that
>> happen,
>>>> for children. It seems to me that the reason Amy and Jed are important
>> for
>>>> this dialog is because schools ARE the key to changing the narrative.
>> Or so
>>>> I think and feel. And getting real dialog into the schools, not test
>> prep,
>>>> is what will change everything. That's the concept I think is worth
>> aiming
>>>> for. Again, so I think and feel.
>>>> Henry
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:15 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the recap, Martin. Then we got to Phillip who talked about
>>>>> theorizing and autobiography as part of the Foucault thread. Is the
>> move
>>>>> from ourselveS to ourselF important?
>>>>> 
>>>>> With the critique of culture issue, it seems that the sense of A
>> culture
>>>> as
>>>>> AN historically formation of human lifeways and Culture, as the medium
>> of
>>>>> all forms of human life, are getting conflated in the discussion. The
>>>>> project of criticizing various values and practices that are part of
>> the
>>>>> cultural conditions of our own society (conditions plural) seems
>> doable,
>>>> if
>>>>> necessarily contest. A critique of human Culture as a medium of human
>>>> life
>>>>> seems considerably more problematic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Martin John Packer <
>>>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was simply responding to Paul M.'s (rhetorical?) question as to
>>>> whether
>>>>>> there might be a state of nature to which we could return that would
>> be
>>>>>> outside culture. I said that this is not possible for homo sapiens -
>> we
>>>>>> need culture to survive. Michael G. then suggested that if we can't
>> step
>>>>>> outside culture we cannot critique it. I replied again in the
>> negative,
>>>> and
>>>>>> made a passing reference to Foucault who engaged in research that was
>>>>>> critical of culture from inside: one of his ideas was to work with
>>>>>> marginalized groups to explore ways of living that the mainstream has
>>>>>> ignored. Larry then suggested that Foucault was following
>>>> Merleau-Ponty's
>>>>>> lead, and Phillip responded that Foucault was more influenced by
>>>> Hyppolite.
>>>>>> I countered by suggesting that Foucault's research program - exploring
>>>> what
>>>>>> he called "the historical ontology of ourselves" - in other words, how
>>>> we
>>>>>> are constituted historically (and culturally) as specific kinds of
>>>> person -
>>>>>> was at least consistent with the interests of Merleau-Ponty and
>> Sartre.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Phew! What a tangled web we weave.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Greg Thompson <
>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I thought it was Martin who had mentioned Foucault's "historical
>>>> ontology
>>>>>>> of ourselves"?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'd love to hear more too (note this is where Martin's book The
>> Science
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Qualitative Research leaves off. I'd love to hear the argument
>>>> enlivened
>>>>>>> once again).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Martin?
>>>>>>> -greg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:25 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My apologies if my "chaining" off your comment about cocktail
>> parties
>>>>>>>> distracted from the main point of the ongoing discussion, Phillip.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Could you say more about what an historical ontology of oneself
>>>> means? I
>>>>>>>> can understand the truth of the idea that In any interaction with
>>>>>> others,
>>>>>>>> whether at a cocktail party or in an academic discussion group, one
>> is
>>>>>>>> creating one's own history and that an autobiography is a self
>> history
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> ego's point of view. If one theorizes, then theorizing is a mode of
>>>>>>>> activity/experience that becomes the material of autobiography.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am still back on David's earlier claim that cultural historical
>>>>>>>> approaches to understanding human development do not view data as
>> ways
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> testing/evaluating/improving theory. I may have gotten confused by
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>> that the discussion on Foucault, Merleau-P, et. Were part of that
>>>>>>>> discussion. A lot swirling around at once.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A pathway out of the thicket would be gratefully received.
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, White, Phillip <
>>>>>> Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> as you write, Martin, yes, they had similar descriptions of their
>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Foucault came to describe his work overall as a "historical
>> ontology
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> ourselves." Certainly both Sartre and Merleau-Ponty were
>> philosophers
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> ontology, and of history."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> the difference is, i believe, that Foucault identified with those
>>>>>> peoples
>>>>>>>>> who have been marginalized: prisoners, those deemed mentally ill,
>> and
>>>>>>>>> homosexuals.  he said that his writings were autobiography.  and
>> i've
>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>> to understand my own work as a way of autobiography.  i've begun to
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> of theory as a way of autobiography.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> i believe that i recognize a great deal of autobiography performed
>>>> here
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> xmca - just as one sees autobiography performed at a cocktail
>> party.
>>>>>>>>> (that's a great metaphor!)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction
>> and
>>>>>> re-
>>>>>>>> construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but
>>>> more
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths,
>> and
>>>>>>>> Gray, 2001]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>>>>> 882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction and
>> re-
>>>>> construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but more
>>>> or
>>>>> less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths, and
>>>>> Gray, 2001]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
>>> Social Foundations of Education
>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>>> Georgia Southern University
>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
>>> P. O. Box 8144
>>> Phone: (912) 478-0355
>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-0355
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA  30460