thanks to those who kept the idea alive - nate, martin, and others;
i think there are probably at least one hundred and one different ways of
asserting the relations between what we all might imagine "history" to
mean, and how we all might differently imagine "text" to re-present
whatever we might mean by history,
meaning, there is hardly a definitive relation between history and text,
since there aren't any substantial stabilities for grounding either
"history" or "text" -
so if i can contextualize my remarks, once again,
as academics - and i do know how much more seductive it is to forget that
this is what most of us do with our time - but as academics, we are,
mostly, involved with TEXT, and however we conduct ourselves in activity,
we express our activities in relations with texts- and here, especially,
in the contexts of readings, we are conducting ourselves in contexts of
text,
writing our particular perspectives.
history is irretrievably textualized, re-presented in different forms and
genres, culturally-reckoned in a concert with whatever history is at
stake, with who might benefit from a particular history, or perspective of
a particular history...
this is not to suggest no one experiences events, but that our experiences
are expressed in different narrative-contexts, as stories we tell,
memories we refer to, books we write, papers, what we read, what we choose
to read, films, music, however we choose to indulge in the affirmation of
a particular historical relation,
we are, invariably, relying on kinds of symbolisms that - in Western
dominant genres - are textually dependent.
i don't see this as a universal generalization - i understand this as a
facet of Western culture.
i think Angel Lin and Eugene have very nicely expressed the problems with
such dominance,
and SOOOOO, a critical-historical perspective might be able to highlight
both the dominance of the text, as history, as well as the problems
inherent in that assumption as a universal generalization: text is
expressed in yet-untold manifestations, just as assumptions about culture
have yet to be elaborated in particular historical contexts that can be
understood, interpreted, expressed, shared, listened to, and so on.
so it seems to me, through critical-historical / cultural-historical
analysis, it can become possible to reckon with the underlying privilege
and powers that dictate assumptions about culture, or history, or text.
diane
**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:37 PDT