narrators, quantifiers, and troublemakers

diane celia hodges (dchodges who-is-at interchg.ubc.ca)
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:38:36 -0800

At 8:32 PM 11/14/97, Jay Lemke wrote:
>Making another brave attempt to catch the moving train ...
>

so, Jay: *is* this indeed a reference to
_Zen & The Art of the Motorcycle Maintenance_? ;-)

<snip>
>
>Dichotomies, in my experience, are of extremely restricted usefulness in
>general theoretical discussions, whether qual vs. quant, narrative vs
>expository argument, or nominal vs. real. Each of these dyads merely
>indexes the very large spaces of possibilities on many dimensions that
>address their concerns. There are neither just two sexes, nor just two
>genders; all category systems make _multiple_ contrasts on multiple
>dimensions, otherwise they would be pretty useless in practice. Adversarial
>genres of argumentation are the discursive meta-trap that attracts us
>unwisely toward merely symbolic dichotomizations.

again, I cannot help but think there is more to be gleaned from
scraping the barnacles off this boat (she said, switching metaphors in
mid-stream)

than from poling back and forth from shore to shore.

Old School/NewSchool - these distinctions share, unfortunately, the shackles
of the modifier - "school"... Quant-qual, too, share the weight of their
trade: methodology;

and it is *this* relationship which could push some to re-think
what it means to be sailing this ship in the first place...

The purpose of research, surely, in the social sciences, has *changed*
during the past 100 years?
The basis for academic motivation is surely recognized now as more
discursive and so infinitely more crucial as what 'determines' the
research than the results of the study/inquiry/
test/investigation/ad nauseum...?

My personal/professional interest, I suppose, is cultivated more fruitfully
amongst new members of the academy, the initiates into the "profession",
the graduate students

who seem to CHOOSE research interests out of what strikes me as
compassion, and then who, inevitably,

(1) rewrite their research interests on the basis of the methodological
restrictions;

(2) change their research interests on the basis of conforming to
research methodologies;
(3) proceed with their work, and wrest with the issues of guilt and cultural
appropriations embedded in the project's methodologies;

(4) cave in, and "do what must be done" in order to finish the project,
get the degree... (abandon all hope ye who enter here...)

effectively, we (grad students) are all trained in such a way that
conscience and compassion
are mostly liabilities.

The question here perahps is not THIS or THAT school of thought, or THIS or
THAT
methodology;

but WHO benefits from the work?

Is this really making a difference?

Do we *really* need to measure inequity/difference any more?
Don't we need to find ways for *acting* ethically, being socially responsible;
involving ourselves proactively
and intervening on the basis of all that "we* know,

from all the measurements and analyses which precede us, and which
(technically) set the stage for our appearance?

the historical aspect here is not just about what Peirce said during his time
or what Darwin supposed in his time; or how scientific methods have
"evolved" or not over the past, say, 100 years... but how has the

academic community changed, how have the demographics of this effected change,
and how has this been resisted, co-opted, ignored, denied, refused,
appropriated, targetted,

(dismissed as "affirmative action" propaganda);
and so on...

What is remarkable (worth remarking upon)
about all of this, is that the foundations of
SCHOOLs-of-thought and METHODOLOGIES has not changed, it has merely been

cloaked in different discourse strategies. As I say, it is the underbelly which
is most tender, and most revealing, most vulnerable,
most specifically protected from

the barbs of a more critical scrutiny,

and which needs to be taken up... let's beach this damn ship.

I mean, maybe we ought to be walking and not sailing;
maybe we ought to be somewhere else than on the train, waving flashlights
back and forth at each other to measure the time/space continuum...(oops!
different train!)

The reality here is (a) (most) academics are not artists; are not writers; and

appropriating the tools of alternative communities does not
imply an alternative strategy, but in fact is a practice firmly

rooted in the tradition of the university, which is to legitimize the
work; to achieve some modicum of "validity"... to "prove" something, prove
*anything*,
but by god you better publish your results.

The academy shares nothing with the artists' communities in terms of practice,
ethics, ideology, or investment; thus, lifting the tools

out of that context and inserting them into the legacies which underwrite all
university-based "work"/"research"/"analyses" cannot change
that legacy, it can only become a tool of the legacy.

I asked earlier, "what are the tools of the trade anyhow?" as a way to move into
this less certain terrain: because when all is said and done, really,

our tools are languages. And as any wordsmith knows, languages describes
kinds of realities. The more remote the language, the more remote the
reality.

I scroll through a variety of emailed conferences, research interests,
course materials,
reference texts, invitations to "hear" others "read" their "papers", etc.,

and what is the same about all of these is doubly-written: the issues of
interest to the academy are shifting from a "laboratory" model to a "real
world"/"out there" model, that is, the desire to infuse the literature with
the allegedly yet-unobserved
phenomena of historical/cultural lives and practices is "au courant"...and

the utility of these projects reflect such an intensely over-structured
self-consciousness which simultaneously refuses to interrogate,
reflexively,

accountability;

that the complexity of the "knowledge" is given over to the complexity of
the presentation: that is, the language. Not symbols, but semiotics.
Semantics. Metaphors. Analogies.

"Words, words, words."

And because the language is embedded in a specific ideological investment
(validity/motivation), the "who" of the research is written over with
a preoccupation for legitimation of the academic.

(anyone who has read Donna Haraway, for example,
over the past few years must have wondered, at some point, for whose benefit
is she writing?)

I am finding this thread fascinating - to all of you who have written,
brava. Brava.

nevertheless, aren't there ways to start thinking about how the university
can be of use to society, instead of how society can be of use
for the university?

diane, asking the millenium question and not the John Stuart Mill question.

"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right."
Ani Difranco
*********************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
tel: (604)-253-4807
email: dchodges who-is-at interchange.ubc.ca