Stanton - I didn’t mean to seem rude, if that’s how I was read: I meant,
rather, to be blunt: there is nothing scientific about the ways people
interact;
it can be made scientific, academics do it all the time, make science
but really, what is this producing that can possibly make a difference for
people’s quality of social life?
You want to understand the relations of narrative and emotional activity?
You could see a therapist: why try to make it science? Because you care so
much? I mean if all this is about how much you care, then there are
certainly other ways to write about it; but there is certainly no
compassion without empathy, and I cannot for the life of me understand how
science can practice empathy in its methods and still consider itself
scientific, anymore than I can understand how a social scientist can act
compassionately without some emotional risk -
I am concerned that you see no conflict with reading a woman’s
trauma-narrative in the contexts of scientific rigour - this is what
discourses and objective practices have done to women for thousands of
years- how do script this for yourself as so unproblematic?
As for self-accounts I don’t mean ‘what’s your trauma?’ but what’s your
investment? Where are you in this writing? What’s your account ? what’s
your story? What’s it like to read how an academic-scripted interview
evoked the grief in another?
diane
**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:07 PST