At 4:12 PM 5/7/98, Dr. PedroR. Portes wrote:
>This is really an interesting, critical problem which we tried to address
>at AERA in P. Samgorinsky's session on the ethics of culturing others.
>Local vs global became the issue as if to say that intervening (or any
>other word less acute like taking action, promotion , don't want to get
>hung up on terms, so let's just say 'organized action by one group that
>affects another) here is more ethical than intervening there, or out there.
I'm not sure what you mean by "more" ethical, but I expect you
are referring to kinds of assumptions and responsibilities
which organized action needs in order to act in the first place, yes?
And that local (here) describes geographies & demographies which
are historcically related through 'common-cultural' frames.
<snip>
>So,
>The problem is where do you draw the line in the sociogenetic line between
>the local and global?, (cf. I know long discussions have been recorded
>along the internal/external thing" when adressing internalization of
>concepts etc..along the ontogenetic),
>Between the West and the rest of the world's cultures Within nation,
>state, city, community or family? The most local level of course, is solo
>with the individual in context acting with cultural tools.
I would expect there are infinite variations on what might
constitute a "local" in a given context. I would also think it
would be possible to work with this notion of nearly indiscriminate space
so long as there was a shared practice at stake -
most research I've read which attempts this work focusses
on sustainable development - setting up farming co-ops, women's organizations,
and so on. Most of these are in rural spaces, which suggests how
geography renders their locale;
on the other hand, these groups in, say rural East Africa, share much in common
with other communities in South America, Asia, and rural Oklahoma -
which is, how to organize a community's primary "industry" so that
it is self-sustaning and not subsidized; so that the
community invested in this "industry" does not starve. In these cases,
"community" describes both geography, (rural) and shared practice -
so the local and global don't need to be distinct,
so much as relative to a context.
.
> My point is that Diane's example calls in question whether at the national
>or say, state level, we can think "locally" enough to not be accused of
>imperialistic, outside chauvinistic, imposing aims.
One of the key features of development work is knowing
what the folks want - that is, development projects respond directly
to situations which are not especially ambiguous - drought, poverty,
faulty irrigation, failing farm co-ops; women's work, and so on.
In the case of forced sterilization, the question is not
how can we stop it; but how might an intellectual
from that nation/state participate with the community in a way which
enables informed choice?
>Do "we" (defined here as xmca etc, as a culture's thinker caste or as a
>relatively empowered 'us'), have an obligation to seek and establish a
>level playing field for children born to poverty?.
Again, contexts can help describe the kinds of interventions or invovlements.
For North Americans, local poverty ought to inspire such an obligation,
and indeed for many it does. The urban-poverty interventions would, i think,
be different from rurual poverty interventions,
and so - when thinking of urban poverty globally, there are
shared practices of industrialization, unemployment & welfare systems,
whereas rural poverty is usally more concerned with ways to improve the
agricutural practices, so, say, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Louisiana, California,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Australia's rural populations, etc. ...all
might indeed
have shared practices, which differ culturally, but which share relations
in terms of practice.
<snip>
>2. Seems that as we expand the definition of who "we" are, the 'local'
>reaches out further and further, so much for how we construct our social
>identity..how far are we allowed to identify with the human condition?
Do we need this? Can we not identify with
particular conditions which affect particular people's lives?
>And I agree, it must come out of a process, of cultural development and
>discussion, perhaps this is very discussion is part of that process. Yet in
>retrospect, what emerges or comes out also from a process is often a
>response to what others have imposed unto a group's (children's) process of
>cultural development.
>
>pedro
all important issues, difficult questions - but this is precisely what
intellectuals
need to begin working through - what does it mean to "act"
_with_ Others as an intellectual, or in that capacity?
I don't think it would be impossible to organize an international network
of scholars who were specifically interested in activist-action;
just as others would be more interested in theorizing and publishing
about what kinds of projects are pursued - this would allow for
a certain amount of answerability to the int'l community of scholar
& profesionals whoi might be doing this (in public knowledge);
as well open up possibilities for smaller networks of
cross-cultrual-communication amongst community groups,
like dairy workers, or textile workers - not union projects, but
critical literacy/information focussed projects, again,
because it seems to me that what we can do is ensure that people
know enough to make their own choices about
their lives.
(dream on girl,)
ha ha
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8