Bill,
at mike's request, after having apologized to him personally for any affront
he might have taken from my misdirected message, I've simply tried to get on
with what I understand to be the purpose of this discussion list. I'm truly
sorry if you fail to distinguish critiques of your theoretical positions
from attacks on your person which is the only motivation I can see for your
ongoing crusade against me. I don't know you, Bill, and I admit that
sometimes in the heat of a discussion with strongly opposed positions,
things get said that sound as though the individual is being attacked But I
tend to agree with Leontev's distinction between person and individual and
although we are not "puppets" on the strings of totally deterministic
forces, I do think that the positions one holds have an objective
ideological character. Some are compatible with and may even reinforce
existing structures of exploitation, in my opinion, and should not be
allowed to mask themselves as otherwise. This is the work of critique. I
don't think this kind of critique should be disallowed on xmca or that it
should be considered flaming. If the comments were simply "what YOU think
supports exploitation" then yes I think that would be flaming. But if the
critique is directed at the theoretical position with the intention of
demonstrating that either its objective content does not coincide with the
individuals conception of it or that it is theoretically questionable, then,
to my mind, that is most manifestly not flaming.
Of course different theoretical positions do situate and have consequences
for the individual. As Leont'ev wrote:
"If the individual in given life circumstances is forced to make a choice,
then that choice is not between meanings but between colliding social
positions that are expresssed and recognized through these meanings."
As far as I can discern objectionable content of my misdirected post
concerned a dalliance with bourgeois ideologues. This has a very negative
sound to it although many brilliant and decent people could be considered
bourgeois ideologues. The "objectionable content" refers totally to a
specific "social position" that might be "expressed and recognized" in a
bourgeois ideology not to the qualities of the individual who might be
considered one. Also, I just listed that as one of two possible
explanations for what I perceived to be an ongoing delay of the Leont'ev
reading. Personally, I believe that mike's intentions were (a) -- to
deepen the discussion -- not (b) -- to maintain the implied relationship
with whomever I might have been referring to and it's also possible I was
only referring to ghosts of my own imagination. But then we all have angels
and devils talking to us, don't we? I betrayed both angel and devil in the
message to Andy. .
It is important to remember, that the message that leads you to say "whoa"
was never intended for the list. Although I posted some flames on the list
last year, after discussing list etiquette with mike both via email and in
person, I have assiduously avoided anything that seemed even remotely aimed
at "individuals" since that time. We all have our own private thoughts and
certainly you and the others you include in your list of aggrieved have
written things off-list that none of you would want on the list. I think the
distinction between public and private is important -- i'm not a
totalitarian in any shape or form. And I think that when fights get
personal they should be "taken outside" and also left there. It's very
chilling when that line gets crossed especially when one was called outside
originally by the one who later threatens to take it back inside..
Let's face it. As we "internalize" different social theories these come to
determine how we see ourselves and hence it's easy to take the attack on a
theoretical position as an attack on one's person, especially when these
theoretical positions reflect, as Leont'ev said, "colliding social
positions."
I personally don't think converting xmca into a soap opera helps anyone in
the long run and hope you will hear (in both the sound and the silence) the
wisdom of letting go of your personal crusade against me.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:55 PDT