but honestly, often I am thinking out loud as I write, so, that is useful
for me, really, rather, quite.
So, here goes:
my theory questions can be angled towards mary's reference to Raymond Williams;
i am coming from somewhere way lateral here, but mary's reference
poked my thoughts and questions about differences in understanding
what/who/how etc. the "social" is conceptualised in sociocultural theory.
Who is the social/what is the social/where is it/ why is it/why can't it
be/
- social.
as mike noted, there is a gap 'twixt
my theoretical interests and much of the list's interests (and I
mean "interest" in terms of learning/knowing/getting invovled with
particular kinds of theoretical explanations of
society/social/socio-[modifer]
phenomenon.)
I think that gap is an important space; and so i guess that is why i
persist in leaping into it, but anyway...
the difference that i am trying to understand can be referred to
Raymond Williams; he is of a genre or cadre of theoreticians who "are"
(Ray's dead now) culturally-focussed and politically-informed.
i would say this seems to represent the difference;
that it is between sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives.
it is a huge difference, and yet both "camps" or "clubs" are looking at the
same thing: society as a peopled system.
(Sometimes the "people" are not in theory about people in societies, but
are there by implication... )
One reason i think sociocultural theory is important if not exceptional is
the peopling of purpose, that the work and questions are not about "humans"
but about real people and their/our real actual situated contextualized
historical activities) -
FOR EXAMPLE:
Ken Goodman's discussions about literacy and California,
and the list responses about
literacy are informed with theory and practices,
but are critiquing from
a position that, if i may say, is sympathetic to People , i.e., kids,
teachers, parents and that fleshy underworld of Policy and Education.
People. People who need people, you know, are the luckiest people in the
world. I just made that up. I swear.
Now, i do realize how paralysing a conviction can be, but for me, the
social is always about people; people ARE the social; just as history is
about people who write about history, and theory is about people writing in
different contexts;
it's inevitably about people, but how one gets to the people is a whole
other process.
looking at people through culture is one way of seeing
that seems to be very different from looking at people through politics.
In other words, sociopolitical and sociocultural are semantically split between
the Cultural and the Political - and I am wondering in what ways does
socioculturalism relate to power/privilege/economics/
or, if there is no
relation between the -cultural and the -political of the socios, how
might this be explained?
the gap might be articulated as a difference between culture and politics.
and the question might be,"How are these differentiated?"
I cannot make that distinction myself,
and i do reckon it's 'cause of Raymond Williams.
Williams' writings are political readings of culture;
and are indispensible for thinking about social
relations/activity/context/where the social is the cultural, but is not
sociocultural.
I recognize this differentiated "social-" as being "subject"
to these modifiers,
culture or politics,
and at the same time,
no one can say with conviction that culture is different from politics,
or can they?
How is this done? Why is this done? - i mean, i am assuming the difference
is deliberately constructed for some reason - perhaps that's my mistake,
but -
what is the benefit/purpose/history of this differentiating of culture and
politics?
diane,
(i feel like I'm holding a very little stick and poking at random, ha ha,
which is not at what I am intending here... i am genuinely interested in
how this
difference is explained, in terms of rationale -
(i ask the same of sociopolitical theory, for its tendencies to
ignore the people who are the socio/social.)
(poke poke)
thanks for reading;