hers is a useful analysis of how dichotomies are played out; that is, who
benefits from dichotomous propositions, and so on.
Feminist critiques of Cartesian thinking, too, are useful here (the
Cartesian duality is mind/matter(body) - this distinction is deeply
significant for understanding the role of dichotomies in philosophy; and
how these organize ideological interpretations of culture/society) -
Loraine Code is a feminist philosopher who tackles these issues in
philosophy, but I can't think offhand of any of her books. She's certainly
prominent, though; easy enough to track her her work down.
The role of dichotomous thinking is to simplify what is complex so that it
is malleable scientifically: that is, in order to properly manipulate
variables in science, & inphilosophy, dichotomies enable a true/false
distinction, key in the power of positivism as a knowledge-practice.
(Easy answers are perhaps the bain of the cultural critic's existence. :-)
The problem with complexity is that we are all implicated in complex
frames; the privileged must be accountable in complex systems because they
are included in the frame: the elite are wont to study themseles,
historically, as accountable; so dichotomies
also put in place as an US and THEM kind of playing field (and so,
professorial arguments rely upon dichotomies as jousting tools which allow
them to debate a subject without actually having to acount for how they got
the horses and the jousting poles in the first place)
Homi K. Bhabha is a postcolonial critic who is credited with the term
"third space" which specifically addresses dichotomies and alternatives to
their oppression (that is, dichotomies suppress difference, complexity, and
so on)
I wish I could recall the article, but perhaps someone else knows.
hope this helps.
diane
At 12:12 AM 12/29/97, Rachel Heckert wrote:
>On Friday I sent the following letter to Mike Cole. In his reply he
>mentioned several books I might read and concluded with, "ps-- why are we
>not having this discussion on xmca??" So here it is. I'm sure the topic
>has been hashed over many times, but even if I can locate sources on my
>own, I have few criteria with which to evaluate them, and have no idea
>whether or not I'm overlooking major viewpoints. Mike recommended Dewey
>and Jack Goody. Any other suggestions or observations?
>
>******
>
>As I continue to read your book, follow the xmca discussions, and browse
>through things I've been playing with, I am continually brought back to
>what (to me) is a fascinating topic - the word "OR." If one tries saying
>"neither" or "both" or "sometimes" or any other kind of non-forced-choice
>alternative, the response is usually on lines of, "Quit being
>unscientific!" I'm used to Talmudic logic, which is notorious for saying
>things like, for instance, in the megadispute of Hillel and Shammai,
>"These and those, both are the words of the Living G-d, but the practical
>application is according to Hillel." In other words, they're both right
>in principle. This type of thing seems to have spoiled me for a lot of
>scientific discourse [at least in a psychonomically oriented department].
>
>Has anybody done a serious study of this tendency of Westerners to
>dichotomize everything? Perhaps explored its cultural roots? (Besides
>Alan Watts and D.T. Suzuki, that is. Maybe I should go back and reread
>them.) I'm not joking. I've observed professors verbally bashing each
>other in class over this kind of discourse, not to mention the effect it
>has on students who are prematurely forced to pick which horse to back.
>
>Any advice or references?
>
>******
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Rachel Heckert
"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