[xmca] The Child in the Courtyard

From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack who-is-at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Sep 03 2007 - 17:26:24 PDT

Dear Paul (and Mike):
  Thanks for (Paul's) ref and for a very diplomatic reading of what was actually quite a shrill post. Whenever I get shrill like that, it's usually a signal that I've misread something.
  Foucault does not, of course, claim that death or Christianity began in the Eighteenth Century. The problem is that his writings can be read to imply that death and Christianity virtually ENDED in the Eighteenth Century, else why this sudden transition from a technology of coercion to a science of persuasion?
  I would understand this stuff better if he would simply deny (as Huizinga did) that the Enlightenment ever took place, or reject (as the Pre-Rafaelites did) that the Renaissance was an advance over anything. But he says that things are written, and then they come to being, and then he doesn't bother to tell us WHY modes of writing change.
  Like Paul, I've always thought that Johnson's "I refute it thus" was rather ill-tempered and silly: one need only imagine poor old Bakhtin trying to repeat the experiment with a phantom limb and obtaining the same result. But I'm devouring the Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky with immense relish, and I find a superficially similar example in Bakhurst, on p. 67 (apologies for the long quote, but Bakhurst is really delectable):
  "Suppose someone invites a seminar group to consider the proposition, 'There is a child in the courtyard.' Length discussion might ensue about the boundaries of hte concept 'child',t he mutabiilty of the child/adult distinction, the historical contingency of the idea of 'childhood', and so on. The seminar might conclude that there is no 'fact of the matter' about who is or is not a child; childhood is 'socially constructed.' Now imagine that a frantic parent interrupts the seminar to ask whether her missing child has been seen in the courtyard onto which the seminar room looks. Here, all the niceties of constructionism evaporate. Given that we define the concept 'child' in a certain way, there is a fact-of-the-matter whether something answering to that concept has been in the courtyard."
  Unlike Johnson's example, Bakhurst's does NOT deny the historical contingency of the concept of childhood or even the possibility of different understandings of "courtyard". What it denies is social-constructivism as a totalizing world view: some meanings are simply more socially constructed than others, and when we use words in a matter-of-fact way, like Antaeus, they touch our natural assumptions and their realist strength is replenished.
  Merely because a tool or sign is a man-made object does not mean that the environment on which it is used is equally man-made. It's actually not clear why we would ever want to deny the distinction (or the link) between signs and referents, or what signs would mean if we did. Similarly, it's utterly unclear to me how Foucault can imagine that signs actually precede their referents, and "the science of persuasion" can pre-exist the social conditions that brought it into being.
  David Kellogg
  Seoul National University of Education

  PS: Needham's book is very long--it runs to many volumes, although there is good three volume abridgement available. It's also ultimately inconclusive; Needham's problem (like Plato's Problem and Orwell's Problem) proves intractible for its namesake.
Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
  mike and all,

with respect to the transformation of the body into a laboring machine, Silvia Federici's "Caliban and the Witch" is a very interesting study of how that came about between the 15th and the 17th centuries in the form of "The Great Witch Hunt". The historical process resulting in the body as (work) machine (a la Descartes) took a long time and turned male against female in a way unknown previously, shutting women out of the public sphere and providing the unpaid labor that would cheapen the labor. Worth looking at for those interested in the development of capitalism, women's history, and western history in general. Sometimes her interpretations and use of the historical data seem forced in comparison with such historians as E.P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm or even Fernand Braudel,to whom her approach is most comparable, but her central analysis is solid and really gets past Foucault's air castles insofar as the transformation of the body image in Europe (and countries
conquered by Europeans) is concerned..

Paul Dillon

Mike Cole wrote:
This message came at a time when it was awkward for me to comment, David.
I have only heard of Needham, not read him, but will set out to remedy that.
also found your critique of Foucault very helpful and of course agree about
interpretation of (all, but in this case, Vai) literacy.

Thanks for taking the time to put these thoughts down on bytes for us to
chew on.

On 8/30/07, David Kellogg wrote:
> Here's one of the few Foucault quotes I like:
> "There can be no doubt that the existence of public tortures and
> executions were connected with something quite other than this internal
> orgnaization. Rusche and Kircheimer are right to see it as the effect of a
> system of production in which labour power, and therefore the human body,
> has neither the utility nor the commercial value that are conferred on them
> in an economy of an industrial type."
> Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison.
> (Translated by Alan Sheridan) New York: Random House.
> pp. 54-55.
> Now, if he had any Marxist or even materialist sense, Foucault would
> stop right there. Better yet, he could expand this into a very interesting
> discussion of why European imperialism abandoned its earlier model
> of genocide ("exterminate") for a model of slavery ("appropriate") and
> eventually a model of relatively "laissez faire" exploitation (India) and
> finally today's model of indirect exploitation (neocolonialism rather than,
> as it is popularly known, "postcolonialism").
> This would be a REALLY good example of the replacement of the power of
> violence by the power of knowledge, the creation of a network of power out
> of productive economies of scale, and (Foucault's favorite theme) the
> replacement of a technology of coercion with a science of persuasion.
> Instead, Foucault, being an incurable idealist, goes off into an insipid
> disquisition on mortality and Christianity! Listen:
> "Moreover, this 'contempt' for the body is certainly (???) related to a
> general attitude to death; and in such an attitude one can detect not only
> the values proper to Christianity but a demographic, in a sense biological,
> situation: the ravages of disease and hunger, the periodic massacres of the
> epidemics, the formidable child mortality rate, the precariousness of the
> bio-economic balances—all this made death familiar and gave rise to rituals
> intended to integrate it, to make it acceptable, and to give a meaning to
> its permanent aggression."
> This has NO explanatory power; there was NO sense in which the ravages
> of disease and hunger, or the massacres of epidemics, or the high child
> mortality rate were a NEW phenomenon in the eighteenth century; quite the
> contrary. If anything, the ravages of disease and hunger were on the decline
> because of better drinking water, cotton underwear that was washed more
> often and greater productivity in agriculture, and child mortality had
> greatly decreased (compared to the middle ages).
> The thing that was REALLY new was the discovery that "we are not alone"
> on this planet, and that it is in fact full of "lesser breeds without the
> law" which can be exterminated, expropriated, enslaved, and eventually
> exploited for greater and greater profit.
> Now, why does Foucault make this sophomoric mistake? I think one reason
> is that Western academics have a VERY hard time coming to terms with what we
> might call the "Needham Problem" (because it was first raised by Joseph
> Needham): the great technologies that made "modern science" possible
> (printing, paper, navigation, etc.) were NOT made in Europe but rather in
> China.
> Since that is true, why did the THEORETICAL knowledge that made "modern
> science" possible (Galileo, Newton, Faraday, etc.) arise in the WEST? In
> other words, why did the TOOLS arise in China and the THOUGHTS arise in the
> West? Why did the Chinese invent gunpowder and then make fireworks instead
> of weapons of mass destruction, invent paper and make playing cards out of
> it instead of mass literacy, invent navigation and then conduct GIFT-GIVING
> missions to Africa instead of colonizing it?
> One answer is a rather unpleasant one for Westerners to think about: the
> violent uses of modern technology that were adopted in the West and that
> gave America and Europe the bully's advantage of getting in the first
> violent blow in a struggle for world playground domination, are not the
> "natural" uses of these inventions at all, and still less are they the most
> human ones; they are merely the uses that would occur to mean, lesser minds
> obsessed with dominating a world inhabited by people who were, for the most
> part, noticeably more noble and human than Western white people were and
> are.
> As a white immigrant to Asia, this is the explanation that naturally
> occurs to me on a day to day basis. Last night, for example, I received a
> knock on the door well after ten. Being a barbarian immigrant on the
> doorstep of a vastly superior civilization, I have a lot of cultural
> baggage; my imperfect command of Korean also inclines me towards suspicions
> of non-linguistic violence. So I slipped the police lock on the door and
> held a worried colloquy through a crack with a poorly dressed but powerful
> looking man in the darkened hall.
> But it was only the fruit seller from down the street. The project
> manager of a construction project on my block was worried about the noise he
> was making and had paid for everybody in the building to receive a crate of
> fresh grapes from his rural hometown. I was absent all day (and therefore
> did not even hear any noise) but the fruitseller did not simply pocket his
> profits or eat my grapes. Instead, he waited patiently for me to come home
> and then knocked on my door, though it was well passed his normal closing
> time.
> Of course, there is another explanation for Needham's problem, and when
> I am not thinking like a white immigrant to Asia, it is the one that I
> accept. It is Mike's explanation in "Psychology of Literacy" that tools are
> not thoughts; that technologies like literacy do not have cognitive benefits
> that stand head and shoulders above the contexts in which they emerge, that
> the meaningful uses of tools cannot far outstrip the material and social
> environments in which the tools arise and the challenges that those
> environments present. Westerners took Chinese tools and turned them to
> imperialistic ends because those ends corresponded to the perceived
> challenge that they found themselves in.
> For the same reasons, although we have the "tool" of modern medicine,
> and anti-bacterial drugs, and public health measures implicit in the
> scientific discoveries of Pasteur, the white plague which killed our beloved
> LSV (and also Volosinov) is on the rise again. The problem is simply that
> the tool Pasteur bequeathed us to vanquish tuberculosis is not enough (and
> in fact was largely not responsible for the decline in the disease in the
> first place).
> In order to conquer TB, we need a SOCIAL environment that recognizes
> poor housing, poor education, poor public health and the very gap between
> rich and poor as the true causes of the disease rather than a humble
> bacillus. But that requires more than a new tool; it requires a new mode of
> thinking. It requires, in other words, thoughtsnotools.
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> ---------------------------------
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
xmca mailing list

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Sep 3 17:28 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT