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

[Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class



David,
not sure if this should be posted in another thread?
Your experience in New Zealand listening to versions of Vygotsky and
Bahktin  left many impressions. Also your writing  a review you wrote
exploring the overlap of dialectical and dialogical theory I would like to
read.
 Is it possible to post your response you wrote?? as I believe it engages
with a central theme comparing and contrasting Vygotsky and Bahktin's
theories.

Bahktin points out [ventriloquated THROUGH Kozulin's book]

The voices of others are indispensable in the *theatre* of our inner
speech. THIS feature of inner speech has an obvious similarity to a work of
literature which on the one hand is encompassed by the language of its
author, while on the other contains a multitude of separate voices from
different characters" [page 179 in *Vygotsky's Psychology*]

Discussing the relational overlap of concepts prosthetics, tools and texts
and the place of *genres* within the *voices of our mind* engages with
the theme of emerging cultural-historical genres developing within
historical epochs. Can both dialectical AND dialogical *voices* be
considered as reflected through the analogy of *theatrical voices/genres*??






The overlap between dialectical and dialogical theory seems of interest to
many on this site


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>wrote:

> Andy,
>
> I fear that you are going to discover that I'm really a one trick pony...
>
> I read Bakhtin's notion of "consummation" as being inflected by Hegel's
> concept of recognition (it isn't exactly the same but the parallels are
> striking - one is consummated by the gaze of the other).
>
> And I think the Hegel's theory of subjectivity is fundamentally contrary to
> the childist theory of subjectivity which is more Kantian to my mind (I
> fear that may take a lot of explaining, but I'll leave it at that for now).
>
> I'd love to hear more from David about what he thinks the consequences are
> of taking on a childist approach. What is lost in that approach? And
> similarly, what is gained by taking a more Vygotskian approach?
> -greg
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > why do you say "pace Hegel" Greg?
> >
> > andy
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >
> >
> > Greg Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> David,
> >> Yes, you caught what I was saying in your parenthetical. My point was
> that
> >> Vera nicely lays out and critiques the dominant view of creativity -
> i.e.
> >> the one where creativity is anti-social.
> >>
> >> And I'd add that in my reading of Bakhtin, I have difficulty imagining
> him
> >> as a childist, not because of his disdain for children (a topic of
> which I
> >> had no knowledge prior to your post), but because I see him as drawing
> on
> >> a
> >> different understanding of human subjectivity - one that draws from a
> >> tradition that is not about the intrinsic flowering of the individual
> but
> >> rather is about the imbricated emergence of an individual who is shot
> >> through / consummated by others. (pace Hegel, imho).
> >>
> >> -greg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:00 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Greg--
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I think of Vera's work as precisely the opposite of an
> >>> anti-social theory of creativity (but perhaps that is just what you
> >>> meant to say?). Vera's work on creative collaborations, for example,
> >>> stresses that in and alongside every famous creative voice there is at
> >>> least one and probably many more equally creative voices. It seems so
> >>> obvious to me, when I read Tolstoy, that I am really hearing the voice
> >>> of his wife, and not just when the female characters speak; I cannot
> >>> be surprised that nothing he wrote after the crackup of his marriage
> >>> measures up to War and Peace or Anna K. Of course, the social medium
> >>> of art cannot be reduced to the interpersonal in this way; but I think
> >>> Vera would say that the tragedy of our artists is that it often must
> >>> be.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, reading over what I wrote, I discovered with some chagrin
> >>> that, your kind comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not
> >>> particularly well framed. As usual, I have left far too much daylight
> >>> between the mounting and the canvas. The Halliday quote fits
> >>> reasonably well but that is mostly thanks to him not me. But I meant
> >>> to say that Bakhtin's ideas were being portrayed at the conference as
> >>> being thoroughly "childist" and this childism was, according to many
> >>> speakers (e.g. Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane and others) what
> >>> made Bakhtin preferable to Vygotsky (even though everybody has now
> >>> admitted that Bakhtin was, personally, a bit of a scoundrel, not least
> >>> for the way he treated HIS partners in dialogue, Voloshinov and
> >>> Medvedev).
> >>>
> >>> This I found inexplicable. How can anyone read Bakhtin (who appears to
> >>> have loathed children and who certainly wrote that child's play had
> >>> neither a moral nor an aesthetic dimension) as a childist? But the
> >>> comments of Mike and Andy, on how creativity is being set out as a
> >>> kind of "Weak Utopianism" (to quote Michael Gardiner's phrase), make a
> >>> certain sense of this nonsense. The collapse of the USSR is to be
> >>> taken as a collapse of the cultural-historical in psychology as well.
> >>> Henceforth, the social is to be reduced to the interpersonal, and the
> >>> creative society to the clever society of one.
> >>>
> >>> David Kellogg
> >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 23 March 2014 14:29, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>> Loved your framing of this as "Anti-social creativity". This is the
> >>>> model
> >>>> of creativity in much of the West! (cf. Vera John-Steiner's work).
> It's
> >>>> everywhere. Read that biography of Steve Jobs - wait, no don't do
> >>>> that...
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, fascinating (and sad) to hear about how capitalism is wrenching
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> older
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> workers in Korea. Sounds to me like "Abstract labor" concretized!
> (i.e.,
> >>>> here is the concrete manifestation of "abstract labor" - labor viewed
> in
> >>>> the abstract - one worker is as good as another regardless of who that
> >>>> laborer is).
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing is sacred with capitalism, seems another "Chinese wall" is
> >>>> crumbling under the weighty flow of global capital...
> >>>>
> >>>> Very sad (and I suspect that those older workers never knew what hit
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> them -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> they certainly didn't expect it).
> >>>> -greg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> As you probably know, Korea is currently run by the neomilitaristic
> >>>>> scion of the previous dictator, who took power in a transparently
> >>>>> rigged election. No, I don't mean that Korea--I mean this one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Park Geunhye, the daughter of our former dictator Park Cheonghi, came
> >>>>> to power about a year ago, first by stealing the opposition's clothes
> >>>>> (to be fair, they made it very easy for her by having such a very
> >>>>> unambitious programme to begin with). The National Intelligence
> >>>>> Service then flooded the country with highly creative Tweets alleging
> >>>>> that her opponents were soft on communism, one of those new
> >>>>> mobilizations of social media that you may not have heard so much
> >>>>> about.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, to make a short story long, having stolen the opposition's
> >>>>> clothes, she is now obliged to renege on her promises in the
> interests
> >>>>> of those who financed her campaign. Now, part of this involves
> >>>>> reneging on a massive programme of social welfare that Koreans
> >>>>> desperately wanted (they deposed the mayor of Seoul in the interests
> >>>>> of keeping a free lunch programme, for example). But surely, one must
> >>>>> put something in the place of a promise of pensions, job creation
> >>>>> schemes, minimum wage, etc, mustn't one?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, not really--all you have to do is babble and blather about a new
> >>>>> "creativity-driven economy". The "creativity driven economy" is a
> >>>>> pleasant way of referring to a highly unpleasant fact of life. In
> >>>>> South Korea, where we nominally respect the elderly (and we certainly
> >>>>> pay them more than the young) it soon becomes cheaper to employ four
> >>>>> or five young people rather than one older one. This means,
> >>>>> necessarily, booting out older workers around age fifty and hiring
> >>>>> younger ones to replace them. The older workers (and, for that atter,
> >>>>> younger ones who cannot find unemployment) are then given a little
> >>>>> handout and encouraged to "create" their own jobs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, for this to work (as a scam, I mean, it's obviously a
> >>>>> non-starter as a social welfare scheme), one really has to try to
> >>>>> inculcate the kind of "every man for himself" mentality that people
> >>>>> have in other countries, and that is really a bit of a poser in a
> >>>>> country which, although highly stratified socially, is still very
> >>>>> collectivistic culturally. That is where education comes in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Consider the folllowing quotation from Halliday (2004, the Language
> of
> >>>>> Early Childhood, p. 251):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Much of the discussion of chlidren's language development in the
> last
> >>>>> quarter of a century (Halliday is writing in 1991--DK), especially in
> >>>>> educational contexts, has been permeated by a particular ideological
> >>>>> construction of childhood. This view combines individualism,
> >>>>> romanticism, and what Martin calls 'childism', the Disneyfied vision
> >>>>> of a child that is constructed in the media and in certain kinds of
> >>>>> kiddielit. Each child is presented as a freestanding, autonomous
> >>>>> being; and learning consists in releasing and brining into flower the
> >>>>> latent awareness that is already there in the bud. This is the view
> >>>>> that was embodied in the 'creativity' and 'personal growth' models of
> >>>>> education by James Britton, John Dixon, and David Holbrook in Great
> >>>>> Britain; and more recently, from another standpoint, in the United
> >>>>> States in Donald Graves' conception of chldren's writing as process
> >>>>> and of their texts as property to be individually owned. It has been
> >>>>> supported theoretically first by Chomskyaninnatism and latterly by
> >>>>> cognitive science models which interpret learning as the acquisition
> >>>>> of ready0made information by some kind of independent process
> device."
> >>>>>  (I omit Halliday's references).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My wife and I recently attended the Dialogic Pedagogy conference on
> >>>>> Bakhtin in New Zealand where these "childist" ideas were very much in
> >>>>> evidence, and where they were explicitly opposed to Vygotskyan ones!
> >>>>> At first I found this opposition rather bizarre, not least because I
> >>>>> had recently reviewed an excellent piece of work by our own
> >>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth for the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal. Roth's piece,
> >>>>> which you can read in the DPJ archive, had argued for the
> >>>>> compatibility of Bakhtin and Vygotsky (on theoretical grounds it is
> >>>>> true). There was also a very fine presentation by Michael Gardiner on
> >>>>> Bakhtin, the autonomists, and the 99/1% discourse surrounding the
> >>>>> Occupy movement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now I am starting to understand a little better. There is, actually,
> a
> >>>>> model of creativity out there which is individualistic,
> >>>>> entrepreneurial, anti-socialist, and even anti-social. The problem
> is,
> >>>>> it's also anti-creativity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 23 March 2014 04:26, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>> Your comment:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  "Avram, I am not convinced that creating niche economies can in any
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> way
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ameliorate the domination of big capital. We have to find a way to
> >>>>>> penetrate and subvert the sources of capitalist exploitation, rather
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> than
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> offering "alternatives,"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> suggests there may be ways to potentially penetrate and subvert "at
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> source" rather than act to *create* alternatives.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  I have wondered if my utopian sympathies which show my curiosity
> with
> >>>>>> exploring *alternatives* can be viewed as *living experiments* or
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> *living
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> laboratories* where alternative life styles and attitudes are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> generated
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> lived.
> >>>>>> It must be my personal experiences with *alternate communities*
> which
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> attempted to actualize their ideal alternatives. I must admit, most
> of
> >>>>>> these experiments are failures. However Cultural Historical Theory
> >>>>>> developed in an *alternate setting* and Dewey and Mead in Chicago
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> gathered
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> together a committed group with shared ideals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In order to penetrate capitalism *at its source* may require
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> demonstrating
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> other ways of life as experiments which express other *values*. Some
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> these alternative approaches will include *alternative community*.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The current discussion on the drift of *university departments*
> >>>>>> suggests alternative forms of gathering may need to come into
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> existence
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> express alternative *values* However I also accept this *hope* may
> be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> naïve
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and not grounded in recognition of the depth of capitalist ideology
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> which
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> co-ops ALL utopian ideals.  Therefore the requirement to subvert the
> >>>>>> *source*?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To once again return to Alex Kozulin's book which is expressing a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> theme.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>  He is exploring the *double-faceted* nature of consciousness and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> suggests
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "interpretive or metacognitive function [aspect?] of consciousness
> may
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> an AUTONOMY from REGULATIVE AND CONTROLLING functions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if this *autonomy* can extend to *alternative communities*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> forming
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> to express alternative *values*?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> One of the themes of the correlation you mention, Mike, is the focus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> on
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "the creative industries." There are theories about the way cities
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> can
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> escape from their rust-bucket depression by promoting "the creative
> >>>>>>> industries." These include software development (e.g. computer
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> games),
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> advertising, packaging and fashion. That's probably fine for urban
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> renewal,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> except for the artists who get booted out of their old warehouses
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> which
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> get
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> done up for the expected "creative industries," but where it's has a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> big
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> negative impact in the academy is in the "critical sciences." People
> >>>>>>> involved in social and political criticism are suddenly faced with
> >>>>>>> imperatives to serve the "creative industries." So feminist,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> philosophical
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and  political critiques, which were surviving by a thread, now have
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> educate software makers who are building computer games or artists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> who
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> are
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> designing advertisements all in the name of needing to support the
> >>>>>>> "creative industries."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Avram, I am not convinced that creating niche economies can in any
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> way
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ameliorate the domination of big capital. We have to find a way to
> >>>>>>> penetrate and subvert the sources of capitalist exploitation,
> rather
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> than
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> offering "alternatives," I think. Capitalism can do perfectly well
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> without
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> a certain percentage of the world's population who find an
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> "alternative".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So my noticing of the fascination and promotion of "culture and
> >>>>>>>> creativity" discourse, design schools, and neoliberalism may be
> more
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> than a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> symptom of failing eyesight?
> >>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, March 21, 2014, Avram Rips <arips@optonline.net<mailto:
> >>>>>>>> arips@optonline.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>     The problem is the connection between people alienated from
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>     labor, or no labor and building a new democratic structure- that
> >>>>>>>>     can happen in a small scale , and spread out to new modes of
> >>>>>>>>     production away from the destruction of capital-such as
> chiapas
> >>>>>>>>     and taking over factories in Argentina.
> >>>>>>>>     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>     To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>                   Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:35 AM
> >>>>>>>>     Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>         Yes, it seems to me that the burgeoning inequality created
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>         neoliberalism is a situation crying out for imaginative
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> social
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>         entrepreneurship, i.e., social movement building. It is good
> >>>>>>>>         to hear that the 1/99 protests have generated talk about
> >>>>>>>>         inequality, but that in itself does not create a solution,
> >>>>>>>>         does it?
> >>>>>>>>         Andy
> >>>>>>>>         ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------------
> >>>>>>>>         *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>>         http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>         Avram Rips wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>             Innovation and entrepreneurship  in some ways means
> >>>>>>>>             capital crowding out social space and solidarity. This
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>             evident in cities-whole neighborhoods taken over by
> >>>>>>>>             wealthy crafts people, and little focus on
> co-operative
> >>>>>>>>             movements for working class people-where a new focus
> on
> >>>>>>>>             participatory democracy can be developed ,and working
> >>>>>>>>             class culture in the Gramscian sense. take care! Avram
> >>>>>>>>             ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike cole"
> >>>>>>>>             <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>             To: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>>>             Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>>>             <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>>             Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:31 AM
> >>>>>>>>             Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                 Andy--- My intent in the garbled sentence you
> query
> >>>>>>>>                 was to suggest that the
> >>>>>>>>                 discourse in the US around vicious inequalities
> has
> >>>>>>>>                 increased markedly in
> >>>>>>>>                 the past year in tandem with a kind of frenzy in
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> those
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>                 parts of academia I
> >>>>>>>>                 come in contact with about "design, culture, and
> >>>>>>>>                 creativity" all of which
> >>>>>>>>                 are linked to innovation and entrepreneurship. I
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> very
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>                 interested in the
> >>>>>>>>                 nature of imagination and creativity but I they
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> often
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>                 appear to be new code
> >>>>>>>>                 words for social and individual salvation in a
> lean,
> >>>>>>>>                 mean, neo-liberal
> >>>>>>>>                 world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                 Maybe just another of my confusions.
> >>>>>>>>                 mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>>                 <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                     Mike, could you clarify a little your comment
> >>>>>>>>                     below ...
> >>>>>>>>                     ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                     *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>>                     http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>>>>>>                     <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                     mike cole wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                         ... My fear that is appearance is
> >>>>>>>>                         non-accidentally rated to explosion of
> >>>>>>>>                         concern about poverty/class (the 1%/99%
> idea
> >>>>>>>>                         has become ubiquitous in
> >>>>>>>>                         American
> >>>>>>>>                         discourse).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                         mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> >>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>> Department of Anthropology
> >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> >>>> Brigham Young University
> >>>> Provo, UT 84602
> >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
Status: O