[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty
"In a similar way, an ideal orientation to teaching/development (i.e. a
implicates an interpersonal relation of a similar "world view" type
magnitude, such as the considerate (agency-empowering) regard one has for
one-self and others. Instead of thinking of this as some sort of skilful
aspect of (or adjunct to) culture, it appears to be something much more
and your example from Weber that Protestant ideal orientations to
"development" as world view underlies Capatilism [as analogous processes]
opens up a place for "ethical notions".
The "meta" relation of alternative "world views" and making the case for
"care and cultivation"
at the foundation [or at the founding moment from a phenomenological world
Then notions of "third spaces" and "ZPD" as sharing similar "places/spaces"
[as met-phor] is a way of making a case for "caring/cultivating places"
from which "emerge" learning "potential.
It seems [from this particular ethical worldview perspective] that to make
a "case" in order to be/become a certain kind of person is to
create/discover/reveal or be implicated within a place of care and concern
from which we act. But we can only act from "this" place" within an
"interpretive community" that shares this "project" [as a projection of the
possible or the "could be"
Now what collapses this "third space" is the imposition of pre-ordained
rules and standards which create a complimentary space of doer and done to.
Is it the imposition of rules/standards that dissolve ethical third spaces
That is the question your thread invites for consideration in my reading.?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Huw Lloyd <email@example.com>
> Compelling as the "liberal/ethical relations" notion is, it does seem to
> imply that there is an ideal form of personality constituting this
> (essentially psychodynamic) notion of culture (i.e. as the kind of ethical
> regard required to constitute a zpd). Is that justifiable I wonder?
> Personally, I tend to think that it is what constitutes civilization (in
> the sense Clive Bell used, as an attitude or state of mind). Yet it would
> be rather abhorrent to turn it into dogma.
> For those wondering what this is about, I'll attempt a brief analogy. To
> undertake science (to become a scientist) it is generally necessary to
> accommodate certain world views about objectivity etc. In a similar way,
> an ideal orientation to teaching/development (i.e. a zpd-like relation)
> implicates an interpersonal relation of a similar "world view" type
> magnitude, such as the considerate (agency-empowering) regard one has for
> one-self and others. Instead of thinking of this as some sort of skilful
> aspect of (or adjunct to) culture, it appears to be something much more
> central and, indeed, more culturally important than the particular
> technological (or mnemonic) form a society takes. It is more about
> relations of power and community (or its absence) than about artifacts etc.
> To the degree that people have power, they have the power to adopt
> egalitarian forms of conduct (though they may, presumably, lose that power
> in doing so). Power may be obtained through technical, mnemonic and
> linguistic forms, yet the relation to this power, the way it is wielded,
> seems to be influenced by cultural knowledge (or values) of a different
> order to that of artifacts etc.
> The etymological senses of caring and cultivating certainly seem to support
> this view. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=culture). In this
> sense, the ZPD and similar relations are not imparting culture, they are
> doing it.
> On 10 February 2015 at 06:02, Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Andy,
> > The notion of culture [as "bildung"] is a concept of learning that has a
> > history of colonial and Eurocentric prejudices.
> > However when I read Anna Stetsenko's notion of TAS [Transformative
> > Stance] or Kris's "third wave" and testimonio or the concept of "ZPD" is
> > possible to consider these enactments also participating in cultivating
> > bildung as cultivating a particular "stance" or "position"? Cultivating
> > particular "approach" or "method"? Another example is "kobito theory"
> > which can be considered a particular way of constellating interactions.
> > Is the fact that the notion of bildung as "cultivation" historically
> > has been Eurocentric in its enactments and used in processes of
> > mean the concept of culture as cultivation is bankrupt? Or can this
> > of "bildung" be transformed to re-imagine striving to cultivate new
> > of collaboration [through "bildung"]
> > In other words can the concept of "bildung" be expanded beyond its
> > Eurocentric prejudices and "constellate" new ways of participating in
> > collaborative projects which are "hybrid" forms that become actualized
> > then nurtured and cultivated?
> > I recognize a "shadow side" to notions of "bildung" as pre-formed and
> > static and "dead" [not living forms. I recognize there always exists a
> > "gap" between the pre-formed and the emergent form and this gap must be
> > continually negotiated, however, I still question if notions such as
> > Stetsenko's TAS are ethically formed "dispositions" that through
> > cultivation develop as particular ways to "approach" the "gap" in a
> > of openness and attentiveness to next steps.
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <email@example.com>
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > > I very much enjoyed your use of the metaphor of constellation for
> > culture,
> > > because there is an arrangement of all that constitutes culture, with
> > > spaces and distances in between.
> > >
> > > I also like the idea of thinking about culture as adjectives and
> > > which you didn't say, but almost did!
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Annalisa
> > >
> > >