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

[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse

Hi Rein,
Your question opens up a direction I want to follow in your leading question.
Using your insight on *ity* in previous posts (that have entered my awareness and keep returning and *resuming* a presence in my reflections).
We can say we are talking about masculin*ity and feminin*ity  as being expressed as generalities in our cultured words and worlds.
This involves *logic* and may include logic of feminin*ity as counterparts of the logic of masculin*ity.
This is a turn in the conversation. I would suggest we are possibly turning to the ethical dimension as primary.
This would include the general logic of (ForGiving) and also the general logic of *hollowed-out* shallow neo-liberal general*ites.

I will just repeat this is not expressing the image of two sides of the same coin. The coin image implies two *independent* sides fused in a material stratum (the coin). 
I hear the *ity* as interrelation, intertwining, chiasm, *each IN the other.
I am wondering (with Merleau-Ponty) if this theme also expresses the 3 aspects of the play of  activity-gap-passivity or the reverse as passivity-gap-activity as playing out and being expressed in the images of  masculin*ity and feminin*ity.
The breath of inspiration-gap-expiration or looking-gap-seeing.
In the oikos realm the image of the dance of  *marriage* as ethical philosophy.
For our moment in history to *resume* these themes once again for the first time.
The mystery of the gap

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Rein Raud
Sent: November 3, 2016 8:05 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse

Jacob and Greg,

Please clarify what do you have in mind when saying that “logic is gendered”. In order for that sentence (or any other) to be correct or incorrect you already need what I understand should be called “logic”, i.e. general rules for judging an argument in a context. Does “logic is gendered” mean that “logic” is something that representatives of a specific gender have invented f.ex. in order to subdue other genders, or that each gender has its own logic?

By the way, I don’t believe there are culture-independent genders, i.e. it means something different to have been called “man” in ancient Greece or India than f ex in the world of today, so there is certainly a point in claiming that the system of genders is itself gendered, in other words, what cultures have “naturalized” as divisions into genders are more often than not constructions erected by a gender group in order to dominate others. Such construction, I would argue, can only be taken down with arguments that follow a logic which itself is not gendered, because if it were, it would be a contestant in the field, not the referee. 

With best wishes,


> On 03 Nov 2016, at 16:30, Jacob McWilliams <jennamcjenna@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's no doubt that "logic," as an outgrowth of objectivist, rationalist
> epistemology, is gendered--after all, if theorists wants us to believe that
> all _other_ epistemologies are socially constructed, then it follows that
> objectivism is too. And it's constructed to benefit those in power--i.e.,
> people who think like, and commonly are, white men.
> Lots of feminist theorists have written about this. Donna Haraway took us
> on a wild ride through science's logic fetish back in the 1980s:
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178066?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
> Lots of feminists have written about this. Sadly, most folks in most
> academic departments are appallingly unfamiliar with their work. Sadly but
> unsurprisingly.
> Not to beat the proverbial dead horse, but several listserv
> members--including me--have tried to introduce this position re: logic in
> prior xmca threads. The position has mostly either been ignored or loudly
> rejected out of hand by more vocal participants on this listserv.
> -- 
> Jacob McWilliams
> Learning Sciences & Human Development Program
> University of Colorado Boulder
> j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I want to bring a call back to the idea of logic and gender.
>> Someone in the thread noted that "academic discourse" wasn't about winning
>> but simply prevailing logic. Anna commented back you could be logical and
>> not be a "jerk" about it.
>> Maybe both statements can be true.
>> White males may not excel in this type of logic simply based on their
>> privilege. Though I am sure privilege plays a huge role.
>> Could it be the Western tradition of logic is itself rooted in gender
>> inequality? It is a field a few thousand years old that was made up by
>> white men arguing "logically" with other white men. Naturally the discourse
>> practices would signify and reinforce membership within these circles.
>> Exclusion of underrepresented voices has influence how the concept of
>> "logic" has evolved.
>> I keep thinking about "logic" and argumentation as I begin to interact with
>> scholars outside of the US. We have put a strong emphasis on arguing in our
>> K12 curriculum. Yet when I talk to people from other countries they note a
>> word for "argumentative writing" or "argumentation" does not really exist
>> in their language. Which as we know influences thought...which influences
>> language..and both contribute to culture and activity.
>> So could it be the gender bias that has existed in the listserv is a
>> symptom of stressing a definition of "logic" maybe engendered. Notice the
>> talk in our models of logic have been proving who is right and who is
>> wrong? What translation is best for example.
>> It is one individual "proving" he is right rather than they reaching a
>> consensus on what is right.
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:47 AM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> Sometimes synchronicity is spooky. I spied this in the Guardian just now.
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/
>> silicon-valley-sexism-diversity-valerie-aurora-frame-shift
>>> In reply to Maria-Cristina, it's difficult to have work-life balance when
>>> the division of the personal and the public worlds exists. From what is
>>> described in biased workplaces (in article above), it's necessary to have
>>> some sort of protective wall, if only to survive another day.
>>> The irony is that people become competitive in the work place because of
>> a
>>> perceived scarcity of resources, but in technology it seems to me to be a
>>> perceived scarcity of privileges. I have never understood how sitting at
>> a
>>> keyboard is somehow "hard work." I know it requires effort and
>> intellectual
>>> effort in particular, but it's not like working on a farm, where solving
>>> problems with scarce resources is always the norm. Think bricolage.
>>> Maybe this perceived scarcity is the same in academia. Having a worldview
>>> that the field of knowledge is infinite, seems to be, looking from the
>>> outside. But perhaps I am unaware of the bricolage people do inside the
>>> university. I do not mean to diminish truly hard work.
>>> Anyway, these resources are culled from the public world to feed the
>>> personal world in the end, isn't that the true motivation? To protect
>> home
>>> and hearth when we aren't talking about invading hoards on longboats
>>> shooting flaming arrows at our huts shouldn't carry that same impending
>>> fear, dread, and uncertainty. But sometimes it seems to feel that way,
>> that
>>> people behave with that same ferocity of a struggle to the death.
>>> It is an illusion, a misperception. But this misperception has its
>>> apparent reality that creates real fear in people. As if their lives
>> didn't
>>> matter and unbalanced equations must be attacked with quadratic
>> solutions,
>>> to set the matter straight.
>>> Instead, a shared effort is required to permit that defensiveness, born
>> of
>>> competition, to dissipate. In order to do that, people have to feel safe.
>>> So how is safety created in the spaces? Spaces free of ridicule and
>>> non-acceptance. Then, isn't that what every human being desires and
>>> requires to flourish? Interesting that that need has no bias.
>>> That is why I admire Aurora so much. I really think that she is on to
>>> something.
>>> Larry, rather than reversibility, I'd prefer receptivity or reciprocity.
>>> And rather than finer nature, I'd prefer true nature (with an idea that
>>> being competitive, biased, prejudiced, unethical etc, are actually
>>> artificial constructs, that when obstructions have been lifted, what is
>>> natural is to balance what is there (like homeostasis), free from
>>> hindrances.
>>> In order for us to recognize what is fullness in ourselves, fullness must
>>> already be present within us, otherwise we could not recognize it, we
>>> wouldn't have affinity toward it. So if we can remove the notion of
>>> scarcity, then the fullness of who and what we are, which is already
>> there,
>>> will be evident. It will have an appearance of emerging from nothing, but
>>> it's really just appearing like a tree in the fog that was standing quiet
>>> all along, and all that was required was for the fog to lift.
>>> Anyway, I want to lastly add that I bring up demand over production,
>> which
>>> Maria Cristina had shown some interest. The idea is that we have demands
>>> which actually decide production, and these demands are socially based,
>>> because we have social natures. Even if we are talking about biological
>>> demands like food and shelter, early childcare, regardless, in those
>> cases
>>> there is a social aspect to them.
>>> Looking through the other end of the telescope, when we consider demand
>>> first rather than production, things look interestingly different. If we
>>> include things in demand in that exploration (rather than things in
>>> production), we begin to see the social life of things, we start to see
>> how
>>> these items go in and out of commodification, where objects have auras of
>>> value that reside outside of monetary value and markets.
>>> Let's consider your dining room table. You bought it in a furniture
>> store,
>>> or perhaps online, or from a thrift store or garage sale, maybe it was a
>>> gift. But as long as you own it, you don't consider the market value of
>>> your dining room table, or its appreciating value if say it was made by a
>>> famous furniture maker where in 20-30 years you'll see those items
>>> appraised on The Antiques Road Show; at least not until you decide you
>>> don't want to own it anymore. During that time of possession, the dining
>>> room table starts to have different value, a social value, which is
>>> determined by its demand, or should I say demand for it. It supports the
>>> family by providing a comfortable place to eat meals. A place for kids to
>>> do homework. A place to play card games. Or to cut a dress pattern from
>>> fabric, etc. All of these are domestic activities, but they have no
>>> production value in terms of tables. You only need one dining room table.
>>> Still, the table will generate value in the household, because of the
>>> activities that the table supports, even if it is to bring people
>> together
>>> at holidays, or even if it has only sentimental value, say if the table
>> is
>>> damaged and must be repaired, or it has been moved because the room is
>>> being painted. This description depicts the social life of the dining
>> room
>>> table. Which is based upon its demand, not its production.
>>> Anyway, as I said previously, my debt for these thought experiments comes
>>> from Arjun Appadurai. If anyone is interested.
>>> Maria Cristina makes a great point considering work life and living life
>>> as two types of activity systems and thinking about their inherent
>>> contradictions. What comes from this tension that transcends the two?
>>> (Might this exploration echo the comparison between production and
>> demand?)
>>> Is Maria Cristina correct that there hasn't been much discussion in this
>>> area? if so, I'd like to learn more about that.
>>> Great conversations. Thanks.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Annalisa

Status: O