Hi Eugene-- There is ample textual evidence for the reasons that Jim
prefers sociocultural to sociohistorical; in general they support your
points, Eugene-- when history is equated with progress, and ESPECIALLY
when history/progress are interpreted as predictable, the consequences
are well known and, I think is fair to say, unhealthy to human life (not
the only unhealthy world view around, by any means!).
There is also pretty good textual evidence for the tradeoffs involved in
substituting culture for history,e.g. the absence of historical analysis
that goes with the territory.
If this is a topic people wish to discuss, I could pull together some of
the relevant texts in the next few weeks, scan them, and make them
available.
I wonder if others, like myself, attended the Lahti AT conference a
decade ago? There was a -- to me -- totally astounding set of events there
that manifested the insensitivity/disinterest in issues of diversity at
the time. I am thinking of the symposium that began with Toulmin, proceeded
to Zinchenko, and ended with a Vietnamese colleague (sorry, in my chauvinism
I forget his name). The hall was packed for Toulmin. 75%of the audience
stood up and left when he finished speaking. When Zinchenko, translated
by Peeter Tulviste finished, 75% of the remaining audience left. I recall
moving, with a few colleagues, to the front and center of the room so that
the remain speaker could see that he was not alone in the large hall.
A LOT has changed since then. The recent conference in Brazil attested to
that and the theme of the upcoming ISCRAT conference, where the sociocultural
and CHAT traditions re-unite attests to will for a diversified future. Getting
a running start at AERA seems a fine way to go, and if folks want to start
even earlier or continue such discusions on XMCA, they will find a willing
set of participants at LCHC.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:21 PST