[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] The God Terminus and other forbidden topics

Hi Christine.

I agree that social movements do have a trajectory (or at least a
memory) of dialectics. But that is not enough to add the support of
the mass. And we have to distinguish the mass movement from the social
movement. If the rationality of the social movements is so clear, they
could attract followers just by presenting that rationality to 'the
public' at large. The problem, again, is that the best rationality
does not necessary equates with acceptance or appropriation (or how an
intervention can go sour or not happen at all). In a nutshell, the
"ideal", the "objective spirit", comprises many parts which are
absolutely different. The way people appropriate social mores is
different to the way legislation is done within a particular political
system. I think a way to deal with those differences is by using
Durkheim's and Bernstein's theoretical bodies. Put in another way, the
question is how to deal with different vectors of development or

The Chilean education reform movement is a clear case drawing on the
country's dialectic tradition. Yet, they have to draw the mass into it
while they keep working into enriching the "poder popular" (people's
power). In any case, there is no articulated top-down rationality
because power needs to be built up from bottom-up and that, I am
afraid, is against the logic of the theoretical system, which is
necessarily based on top-down relations. To work effectively on the
ZPD there must be a gradual transference of control, which is built
upon power differentials mediated by 'soft power', that is, by
everyday concepts and subtle calls to 'be good', 'disciplined',
'exemplary' and so on. In other words, using Wertsch's term, social
regulation is built on 'implicit mediation'. So the common denominator
is being united in the feeling and start building a conceptual system
anew bottom-up, which is something like the coding of common
experiences and trajectories.

This does not mean that emotions do not have a rationality. I believe
I do not need to make a case against the dychotomy emotion-rational

What I am arguing is that the collective, the mechanic solidarity of
Durkheim, is based on gut feelings (the sense of belonging), and there
is an implicit horizontality there (in the feeling; the actual
appropriation is hierarchically organised), whereas the organic
solidarity of competing systems of knowledge, of ridiculous divisions
of labour right now, is not.

Furthermore, I believe that at least in Chile people are suspicious of
top-down technical interventions, for those have been implemented
without articulating real representational democracy. The social
movement may have answers to the educational woes but are afraid of
appearing as one more technocratic operator.

Academy may be dialogic within the division of subjects, schools,
etc., but true interdisciplinary is difficult to achieve. Overall, I
think that scholars tend to spend too much time and effort building
their careers (and knowledge), acquiring power, just to put themselves
in a horizontal relation. But there are many exceptions in this very
mailing list.


P.S. I could not open the link you sent on the Spanish indignados.

On 29 December 2011 18:23, christine schweighart
<schweighartgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
> OOps technology hitch.! missed the subject heading:Reading further unity again - across both passions  maybe - you miss that indignaos have a background culture with much dialectic and dialogue richness - this is expression!There is a not too far, history of activism all through the 20th century- it is not 'gut feeling that a campesino has - but knowledge too ,  'to decide' is a rational frame. There is preference and this can be aesthetic - which in the case of Andalucia - which I know better than Burgos or Asturias - is the way.I'll share a video a protest by indignaos  sent to me by my 20 something nephew indignao:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5dh8v7mDsChristine. I am thinking about the "Indignados" movement in Spain. When asked
> what they were doing, what their goals were, the only thing clear is
> that they were united in Sol square because they shared the same
> feeling of discuss with the State, with politicians, with banks and
> bankers, with the capitalist system, etc. They may draw on the logic
> and discourse of ecologists or anarchists, or whatever, but the social
> foundation is that of a gut feeling. Hi,
> I 'm torn between two passions - this  discussion won!:) I can't do justice. First Hello Arturo - we haven't spoken since discussion Bernstein's descriptive qualities   ( despite being vinculated in the same institution:))
> your comment:
> "
> The system of social regulations is built
> upon everyday concepts, without which you basically cannot mediate
> scientific concepts. But the notions of what is correct for the group
> is always regulated by this kind of feeling, of what is felt as proper
> or improper, right or wrong. And although there is emotional
> contagion, at the end emotions get mediated by concepts as a way to
> appease and control them. "Shows a value of the enlightenment 'rationality in control', Yet all such mediation can do is 'align' consistency of 'logic' with an underlying value - just as Wittgenstein's smallest utterence with 'gesture'A 'group' [ and this implies 'subjectification already] oriented to 'correctness' is working within a static 'correct' - to be able to keep that open  the values underpinning different conceptual dynamics - in dialogue- are continually 're-explored . [ to self-produce 'feeling of correct'  and justice etc in the ongoing dynamic.This is a sideways glance - naturally coming from a backward one - but by no means 'causal' - possibility of orienting to other than what realise now - or 'ideal'  breaks  inherently - but how /who etc. are the big questions.. A collective 'phenomenology' - but - to find conditions to be receptive to 'perspectives' is itself a 'power-relational' issue, and the 'current' social norm:value:roles in play are such that maintain the status quo.My current intense interest is if a 'pure' dialogic form is 'excluded' from academic practice - in terms of status recognition etc - whilst being drafted in as 'technologists' - in what then holds contradictions and 'nightmares'. Ole. Family visit ahead - Just thanks Larry for your 'time-out' to flag this in the way that you did. Christine.                                    __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list