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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: [Sed-l] "Should anthropology breakupwithethnography?"



As a work in progress (in the way Tim explains work) I want to inquire into this relation of participatory observation with ethnographic ways of writing.
Tim emphasizing that ethnographic notions be limited and clwarer, focusing on the theme of *aboutness*as talking about participatory observation *afterwards*.
Greg, I will play with languaging that ex/plores this theme using Frederick Olafson’s notions of (mitsein).
Olafson reflects on how deeply problematic is the lack of recognition of  the *dis/closive function* of language when language is privileged as merely an *encoding* medium. Olafson is focussing attention on the reality of a mutually shared *world* ek-sisting prior to this process of *encoding* the shared world.
Olafson says this mode of thinking that language is mainly encoding  is *occluding* the reality of shared *presence*.
Olafson says privileging the encoding function distorts the dis/closive function of language. The kind of talk and writing that does not make a *place* for languagings disclosive *character* cannot *invite any co-disclosure* within our addressing each other in our con/versations.

Olafaon suggests that to focus attention and being clear concerning this kind of disclosive languaging might undermine the false security that may co-occur if we were to  acknowledge dis/closure (as) a function of what Tim calls *humaning* (as verb).

Heidegger called this move (way of travelling) as a perversion of *an act of disclosure* into an *act of closing off*

Greg, I am aware that I am combining  Tim’s way of talking and Olafson’s way of talking  and translating Tim’s appeal to limit and make distinct what is ethnographic.

In other words my reflections suggest a potential affinity with the concept of *mitsein* as our humaning way mutually  ek-sisting reciprocally each in the other.


Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Lplarry
Sent: May 13, 2016 11:39 PM
To: Greg Thompson
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: [Sed-l] "Should anthropology breakupwithethnography?"

Greg,
Are you asking if writing can ex/press (as a form of becoming)  ways of   participatory observing with others and this form of writing  as  unfolding or carrying us   (con)currently with others within  streams of thought?
As you say humanly writing which is opening inquiry that is not representing what has already occurred.
Would this way of writing continue to be ethnography or do we take Tim’s advice and  limit ethnographic writing to representing and describing what has previously occurred?

It seems this kind of writing would have the quality of written conversation unfolding.
Larry



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Greg Thompson
Sent: May 13, 2016 5:46 PM
To: Larry Purss
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: [Sed-l] "Should anthropology break upwithethnography?"

Yes, Larry, I hear you.
But I think the question that Joanna Cook is presenting is something like this (to blend these different languagings): 
How can you write humaningly?
Is that entirely impossible? Is ethnography cursed with non-attentionality and un-becomingness? (the words get a bit, well, un-becoming...).

And the mention of shamanic move was meant as a compliment. I think it is also a complement to your "hearing the melody of the concept *mitsein* flowing [con]currently within this stream of thought, this way of travelling." Isn't that precisely what a good shaman does?

-greg

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg, Mike,
 
On page 389 Tim explores the difference between *intersubjectivity* and his meaning for the term *correspondence* He defines correspondence as “launched in the current of real time, participant observation couples the forward movements of one’s own perception and action with the movements of others, much as melodic lines are coupled in musical counterpoint. For this coupling of movements that, as they proceed, continually  answer to each other. Tim emphasizes *correspondence* has nothing to do with *representation* or *description*.  
 
Tim makes a fascinating distinction about living *attentionally* in contrast to *intentionally* with others. 
Tim that when living *attentionally* gets cast within the frame of ethnography, correspondence *re-appears* in the guise of *inter/subjectivity*.  And intersubjectivity [following Husserl] is about living with others NOT attentionally, but intentionally. 
 
Correspondence [as Tim means this term] is *not* a relation *between* one subject and other subjects [as the prefix *inter* indicates] but is a relation that *carries on* or *unfolds* along [con]current paths. Being within the current *with* others. 
Also, in this way of attentionally carrying on are not *already thrown* as the suffix *ject* implies but reside within the throwing.  
They are not subjects, or objects, or hybrid subject/objects. They are verbs. All beings are in this relation and the human way is *humaning* Indeed humans are not actually beings at all but are *becomings* as humaning ways. 
 
In other words this way realizes they are corresponding – living lives that weave around *each other*within ever extending ways. 
 
To practise participant observation is to join in correspondence with others with whom we *learn* as a travelling that goes forward rather than backward in time. As such, this way of travelling is the very opposite of ethnography.
 
Greg, I wonder if this is merely shamanic moves.  I *hear* the melody of the concept *mitsein* flowing [con]currently within this stream of thought, this way of travelling. 
 
I hear Tim wanting to *limit* ethnography and what it does. To recognize how it is the opposite of correspondence.  We can write *about* our experiences *afterwards* and this is ethnography. A valid practise. What Tim is saying that this is *not* living *attentionally* which is the humaning way forward.
A fascinating ex/ploration of *mit/sein* or being with the other that is deeper grounded than notions of being *side by side*. It is a deeper ground within a mutual *world* of humaning.
Larry
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: 

Status: O