Judy writes,
>As everywhere, the dualism, the line, should be understood as
>problematic.
>Our activities, not our ideologies, are the basis for meaning. There I
>think everyone concurs.
if ideologies are beliefs accepted as normal practice, how do you _know_
that
your ideologies are not the basis for meanings?
it's like saying i'm aware of my unconscious - our activities are
inescapably related to
our beliefs about normal practice,
just as the dominant discourse here is normative, normalizing, norming the
ideas through its speech-acts -
our ideologies are what we base our beliefs on - i don't see how any
academic can deny this,
although, of course, it being an unconscious normalization, i can
absolutely see how it must be denied, which doesn't help understand
normativity, of course,
but helps explain how it must be protected.
you also write
>Woops. I left out one comment, a response to something diane said, which I
>think is an interesting challenge -- that AT leads logically to "radical
>behaviourism" -- change the activity, force people to change the ways they
>think.
>
>Of course what disrupts that logic is that AT [in my own, Yrjo-influenced
>understanding of it] presupposes community, different perspectives,
>contradictions between goals and motives, constant negotiation of the
>object, the nature of the activity, what it's for; looking 'up' and 'down'
>levels of analysis -- across strata...
again, if we disregard the ways communities are normalized in order to
function as communities,
then that assumption of diversity working against behaviourism slips,
slightly, doesn' t it?
i mean, if one person in a community does not perceive the activity in the
same way as every other participant does, will the others change their
behaviours to accommodate the singular acts of dissent? no, of course not.
the other will be regarded as disrupting the community practice,
abnormalizing the accepted normal practice - all communities rely upon
normalized practice,
discourses, of course (look HERE i mean right HERE it is right under our
NOSES the normative practice and its effect on participation) - really.
what people say, and what they do, are as different as what they can admit
to, and what they believe - belief systems are the unshakable foundation
of historical reproduction. no change has ever been effected, really, to
any of the dominant discourses.
what makes anyone think that AT is somehow exclusive to this?
the very word, dualism, functions to maintain dualities, of course.
the desire for problematizing it is, as well, a function of maintaining
it, don't you think?
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 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:54 PST