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

[Xmca-l] Re: Foucault



Henry and Robert:

There is a middle ground where I don't see a lot getting written, published or discussed. 

I don't mean nothing -- I mean a lot. There are people on this list like Robert Lake who seem to be in a place to do exactly what I'm referring to. Your book, https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/we-saved-the-best-for-you/ would be an indication of this.

The middle ground I'm talking about is something between the hostile rejections of 60's left movement groups written by complete outsiders on the one hand, and self-criticizing rejections of experience in those groups by people who were deep inside and who are now, age 70 (my age, too!) asking "What could we have POSSIBLY been thinking?"  

I would like to see something in between. Those movements, for all their internal drama, mistakes, etc and frequent bad behavior, made a big difference. They DID change the world, in fact. 

I would like to see a careful interpretive version of those intertwined stories that explains where these New Left movements came from and what elements of them survive today. One that treats them respectfully, acknowledging the bad stuff but not scorning or slandering the good stuff.

Henry, maybe you know of such a book.

Helena Worthen
helenaworthen@gmail.com

On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Henry G. Shonerd III wrote:

> I should add, I'm just a sensitive guy. I can imagine some people saying, "Just get over it!!" or "Get a little resilience!" or "Fight back!" Drawing attention to my little nicks would embarrass me. We were brats who thought we would change the world. We were posturing. I don't mean the 60s youth movement was all bad, but some of it lacked grounding. I do suspect that my sense of injustice in the world is at least in part a projection of these "unresolved issues", maybe not a bad thing. But when all is said and done, I don't think I could remember enough detail to tell a good story, even if it were a good story. If I could remember it, it would be bathos. I could easily imagine, however, that others would have a different story, one worth telling.  
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu> wrote:
> 
>> There you go Henry. You have touched on a vital topic
>> that needs more attention. Your 60's experience provides
>> a great back story for your passion against bullying.
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Henry G. Shonerd III <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Robert,
>>> I have not and, off the top of my head, think it wouldn't be of great
>>> interest to anyone else. Like I say, it's embarrassing to be on either end
>>> of that kind of bullying. None of what happened to me was unforgivable,
>>> though it has always made me very sensitive to bullying in ANY context,
>>> especially between peers. It happens all the time in classrooms, in
>>> schools. The small cuts, nicely fashioned to keep one in line. "Classroom
>>> management" keeps a lid on it. Kids aren't naturally mean, it's learned. It
>>> should be at the center of a dialog in schools that pretend to be
>>> inclusive. I think of "multicultural" courses for student teachers focused
>>> on gender, class, race, religion, are ABOUT bullying but not praxis, at
>>> least from my own experience trying to teach it to student teachers. I was
>>> part of the problem, though I think I taught the courses in good faith. I'm
>>> pretty sure that's at the root of the dialog we are having here: How to
>>> have it in schools. Well, really throughout society. What's good for kids
>>> is good for adults. ZPD rules!
>>> Henry
>>> 
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Henry,
>>>> Have you written of your '60's experiences anywhere?
>>>> If not you might consider it.
>>>> RL
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Henry G. Shonerd III <
>>> hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Mike,,
>>>>> A little historical ontology of myself. I was in Berkeley and Cuba with
>>>>> the Weathermen in the 60s when we were thinking in terms of a critique
>>> of
>>>>> not just A culture, but CULTURE: Che, revolution. Middle class white
>>> kids
>>>>> mostly, we even thought we might be willing to die to make a better
>>> world,
>>>>> like Che. Mostly we hurt each other's feelings trying to decide whose
>>>>> consciousness was highest. It's embarrassing to talk about it. Now I'm a
>>>>> retired education prof working as a sub in two great charter schools in
>>>>> Albuquerque, breaking good. Reading the XMA/XMCA dialog, I find much
>>> better
>>>>> grounding than consciousness raising sessions of the 60s, and I find
>>>>> Bloch's optimism (See Andy's website) warranted. Like the song goes: I'm
>>>>> still willin'. I have been scrambling to catch up on the thinking of
>>>>> "academic" giants as I read your posts, convinced you wouldn't post
>>> them if
>>>>> you didn't think they were important for this dialog. In other words I
>>>>> trust this dialog as it looks back. I understand Mike's problem with
>>>>> posting the Amy and Jed talk, though I think it is helpful that we have
>>>>> taken on the messiness of the moment. It's looking forward, the Novum,
>>>>> where I find my optimism. I don't think it's crazy to think that CHAT
>>> can
>>>>> be "popularized",  can be part of changing popular narratives. I love
>>>>> Vygotsky because he worked so feverishly, with others, to make that
>>> happen,
>>>>> for children. It seems to me that the reason Amy and Jed are important
>>> for
>>>>> this dialog is because schools ARE the key to changing the narrative.
>>> Or so
>>>>> I think and feel. And getting real dialog into the schools, not test
>>> prep,
>>>>> is what will change everything. That's the concept I think is worth
>>> aiming
>>>>> for. Again, so I think and feel.
>>>>> Henry
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:15 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for the recap, Martin. Then we got to Phillip who talked about
>>>>>> theorizing and autobiography as part of the Foucault thread. Is the
>>> move
>>>>>> from ourselveS to ourselF important?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With the critique of culture issue, it seems that the sense of A
>>> culture
>>>>> as
>>>>>> AN historically formation of human lifeways and Culture, as the medium
>>> of
>>>>>> all forms of human life, are getting conflated in the discussion. The
>>>>>> project of criticizing various values and practices that are part of
>>> the
>>>>>> cultural conditions of our own society (conditions plural) seems
>>> doable,
>>>>> if
>>>>>> necessarily contest. A critique of human Culture as a medium of human
>>>>> life
>>>>>> seems considerably more problematic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Martin John Packer <
>>>>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I was simply responding to Paul M.'s (rhetorical?) question as to
>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> there might be a state of nature to which we could return that would
>>> be
>>>>>>> outside culture. I said that this is not possible for homo sapiens -
>>> we
>>>>>>> need culture to survive. Michael G. then suggested that if we can't
>>> step
>>>>>>> outside culture we cannot critique it. I replied again in the
>>> negative,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> made a passing reference to Foucault who engaged in research that was
>>>>>>> critical of culture from inside: one of his ideas was to work with
>>>>>>> marginalized groups to explore ways of living that the mainstream has
>>>>>>> ignored. Larry then suggested that Foucault was following
>>>>> Merleau-Ponty's
>>>>>>> lead, and Phillip responded that Foucault was more influenced by
>>>>> Hyppolite.
>>>>>>> I countered by suggesting that Foucault's research program - exploring
>>>>> what
>>>>>>> he called "the historical ontology of ourselves" - in other words, how
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> are constituted historically (and culturally) as specific kinds of
>>>>> person -
>>>>>>> was at least consistent with the interests of Merleau-Ponty and
>>> Sartre.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Phew! What a tangled web we weave.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Greg Thompson <
>>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I thought it was Martin who had mentioned Foucault's "historical
>>>>> ontology
>>>>>>>> of ourselves"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'd love to hear more too (note this is where Martin's book The
>>> Science
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Qualitative Research leaves off. I'd love to hear the argument
>>>>> enlivened
>>>>>>>> once again).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Martin?
>>>>>>>> -greg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:25 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> My apologies if my "chaining" off your comment about cocktail
>>> parties
>>>>>>>>> distracted from the main point of the ongoing discussion, Phillip.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Could you say more about what an historical ontology of oneself
>>>>> means? I
>>>>>>>>> can understand the truth of the idea that In any interaction with
>>>>>>> others,
>>>>>>>>> whether at a cocktail party or in an academic discussion group, one
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> creating one's own history and that an autobiography is a self
>>> history
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> ego's point of view. If one theorizes, then theorizing is a mode of
>>>>>>>>> activity/experience that becomes the material of autobiography.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am still back on David's earlier claim that cultural historical
>>>>>>>>> approaches to understanding human development do not view data as
>>> ways
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> testing/evaluating/improving theory. I may have gotten confused by
>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>> that the discussion on Foucault, Merleau-P, et. Were part of that
>>>>>>>>> discussion. A lot swirling around at once.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A pathway out of the thicket would be gratefully received.
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, White, Phillip <
>>>>>>> Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> as you write, Martin, yes, they had similar descriptions of their
>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "Foucault came to describe his work overall as a "historical
>>> ontology
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> ourselves." Certainly both Sartre and Merleau-Ponty were
>>> philosophers
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> ontology, and of history."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> the difference is, i believe, that Foucault identified with those
>>>>>>> peoples
>>>>>>>>>> who have been marginalized: prisoners, those deemed mentally ill,
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> homosexuals.  he said that his writings were autobiography.  and
>>> i've
>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>> to understand my own work as a way of autobiography.  i've begun to
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> of theory as a way of autobiography.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> i believe that i recognize a great deal of autobiography performed
>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> xmca - just as one sees autobiography performed at a cocktail
>>> party.
>>>>>>>>>> (that's a great metaphor!)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction
>>> and
>>>>>>> re-
>>>>>>>>> construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but
>>>>> more
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths,
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Gray, 2001]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>>>>>> 882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction and
>>> re-
>>>>>> construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but more
>>>>> or
>>>>>> less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths, and
>>>>>> Gray, 2001]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
>>>> Social Foundations of Education
>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>>>> Georgia Southern University
>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
>>>> P. O. Box 8144
>>>> Phone: (912) 478-0355
>>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
>> Social Foundations of Education
>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>> Georgia Southern University
>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
>> P. O. Box 8144
>> Phone: (912) 478-0355
>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>> Statesboro, GA  30460
> 
>