Re: [xmca] Request for Panelist Names on CHAT History

From: Lois Holzman <lholzman who-is-at>
Date: Wed Sep 12 2007 - 07:21:09 PDT

That's good to know. I haven't come across that although it makes sense in
terms of the use of authority you mention, which is certainly a strain we
experience. I'm curious about which fields the people you refer to work in.
It does indicate that we have some work to do being more inclusive.

> From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu>
> Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Request for Panelist Names on CHAT History
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Lois Holzman wrote:
>> I've always thought the lack of dogma, definition and exclusivity was a
>> strength of CHAT.
>> Lois
> I agree, and I think that's how it looks to folks who might be considered
> CHAT afficianados. Interestingly, though, I have heard some people who are
> coming from outside the CHAT community characterize CHAT as a movement
> that looks, to them, comparatively dogmatic -- compared to the
> disciplinary traditions where they feel at home. I've heard remarks about
> preoccupation with LSV's work (and/or Marx, Hegel, etc.) as a kind of
> scripture, for example, such that people are concerned with properly
> interpreting LSV's writing, and using that as a kind of authority, in ways
> that seem to them unlike anything that happens in their own fields of
> research.
> To CHAT folk this no doubt seem like a completely unrecognizable
> characterization.
> What do you think?
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Wed Sep 12 07:22 PDT 2007

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