Nate, Helena, and all,
I have understood the collective subject as being both the
individual and the group. Together or alone. The way I see it the
'subject' is collective by virtue of the socially appropriated
phenomenon of language. As we grow both as organisms and as
citizens we become increasingly collectivized. To me this is the
lynch pin of the unit of analysis problem.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Nate [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 7:24 AM
To: Xmca
Subject: Collective subject
Helena,
In reading your last message and labor paper I have found your
reference to
collective subject interesting.
The reason its standing out and I would welcome an elaboration is
I have
understood collective subject as referring to more than one
person. A unit
of analysis of a group of people (e.g union members)rather than a
single
individual (union member).
What has caught my attention with your use of the word is a
collective
subject can refer to one individual. Would this be accurate, or
am I reading
too much into it?
Nate
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/
schmolze@students.wisc.edu
*****************************************************************
***********
****************
"Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls
for a
radically new approach
to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led
to this
conclusion by a
special investigation of the historical emergence of
role-playing. In
contrast to the view
that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we
hypothesized
that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social
development, as the
child's position in society changed
in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is
social in
origin and,
consequently, social in content."
D. B. El'konin
*****************************************************************
***********
****************
-----Original Message-----
From: Helena Worthen [mailto:hworthen@igc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 11:18 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: April Discussion Paper
I'd like to say a few words about Peter's paper. I enjoyed it
more than I
have
ever enjoyed anything on the subject of how people read. You
could have
called
it, "The Physics of Meaning." His description of how meaning is
produced
through the construction of a new text by a reader has the
patient pace and
lucidity of a scientific explanation of how a rainbow is produced
by the
refraction of light through a prism.
Two assumptions made me happy: One, that signs are most often
verbal, but
may
also be images, dance forms, music, etc. The other that "the
richest
meanings
come through transactions that are most generative in the
production of
potent
new texts."
After some years of teaching literature and drama I found myself
more
interested in the mystery of the reader than the mystery of the
text. Peter
captures the mystery of the readers as I know them. The readers
I teach are
a
collective subject -- union representatives, stewards, learning
how to
manage
the cycles of texts that are part of the work of representation.
Peter's
description is plausible whether one is thinking of school kids
reading
Hamlet
or a shop steward studying his contract, preparing for a
bargaining session
(the production of a new text). Plausibility is a good thing in
a model.
Peter, would you want this called a model? Probably not, I'd
guess.
Helena Worthen
Assistant Professor of Labor Education
Chicago Labor Education Program
Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations
815 West Van Buren Street Suite 214
Chicago, IL 60607
hworthen@uic.edu
hworthen@igc.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:14 PDT