after reading Deborah's article, i wondered just how a difference that
made a difference would play out if Bakhtin himself were on xmca ... my
own personal reading of Bakhtin includes a warning or an admonition to me
about the importance to differentiating between the text (any text) as a
map of the territory, and the territory itself that the text is describing.
for example, two possible responses to Bakhtin is a) to become a master
of Bakhtin's text, know it through and though and be able to cite passage
nearly verbatim and to use the text as territory, or b) to read the text
and then bring to it one's own personal practice of interaction with
others and critically examine it, wonder if one _believes_ in Bakhtin's
philosophy, and if one does, begin a practice of personal interation that
reflects that philosophy. And, no doubt, one could do both, and multiple
permutations.
it seems that within academic practice the teleonomy is to master the
text, and to ignore the practice that the text exhorts. my own personal
take here as i observe the practice of educators and what they teach.
Hicks' article focuses on what she understands to be three themes of
Bakhtin's : intonation, aesthetic activity and discourse (mca; vol 7, no.
3, 2000; pg. 229). She devotes a section to each theme. i'd like to
respond to just one theme - that of intonation. i'm interested in that
both because of an acute awareness of how intonation is practiced in the
political arena here in colorado, as well as how intonation is practiced
here on xmca.
Hicks notes that Bakhtin is interested in the "moral particularity of the
social act" - which has often been talked about here on xmca regarding the
intonation of various members postings. Hicks writes on page 229 "The
development of an individual self is the result, Bakhtin argued in his
early essays, of a series of commitments that are subjective and
particular to context." and i have thought about this statement of hers
especially in relationship to the emotional responses that accompany be
sending and receiving messages within the subjective and particular
context of xmca. Hicks wrote on page 230, "What was more interesting to
Bakhtin were the ways in which individuals construed contextual meanings
and ethical responses in the moments of their coming together. This lived
moment of intonings and responsive engagement was what Bakhtin described
as the _act_ or deed."
so, considering these comments of Hicks and Bakhtin, i do wonder how he
would respond on xmca. my guess is that Bakhtin would ask us to pay close
attention to the emotional, subjective commitments we participants of xmca
have in making our moments of coming together an act or deed of working
for understanding rather than employing text to assert or deny individual
understandings.
just my take on this.
because - as Hicks points out on page 230, for Bakhtin there was an
emphasis on the "moral shadings that create meaningful engagements
towards others, activity between persons would be little more than
instrumentalist rationalities of scientific systems and totalizing
regimes." This is followed by a quote of Bakhtin's in which he employs
the term "the once-occurrent Being-as-event" - and i find this term to
be critically important in understanding Bakhtin. on page 3 of "Towards a
philosophy of the Act" (1993), Bakhtin writes, "Every thought of mine,
along with its content, is an act or deed that I perform - my own
individually answerable act or deed [postuplenie]. It is one of all those
acts which make up my whole once-occurrent life as an uninterrupted
performing of acts [postuplenie]. For my entire life as a whole can be
considered as a single complex act or deed that i perform ...."
i believe this - that all of my acts or deeds i am individually
answerable for - and that the fact that my life is a once-occurrent
happenstance even more critically informs me about the importance of each
of my acts. (I'm reminded here of Ana Shane's earlier comments about the
perils of the obliteration of the importance of each individual.) Hicks
writes on page 231 - "As individuated persons come together in an
experiential moment, each reflects particularistic value centers. If this
moment is one in which the individuals are responsive (answerable to one
another, an enriched experience is created." i like this a great deal -
for it emphasizes a critical element necessary to maintain symetrical
discourse in a fragile community - for i think that any human community
is neccesarily fragile due to the vicisitudes of time, cultural
constraints, external environmental forces, etc. for surely the goal of
xmca is an enriched experience - and if one member were to write to
another that an experience is other than enriched, wouldn't we, if we
believed in what Bakhtin writes, pay attention and attempt to do something
different?
again, as Hicks write (p. 233) "What Bakhtin's writing on acts of
experience do forcefully articulare is how such generes of discourse and
action acquire their power through the complex particulars of feeling,
valuation, and response."
which all takes me back to my original question - what would xmca look
like if Bakhtin were to participate here? for i do think that Hicks is in
the final analysis urging those of use who are reading her to take note
and value the emotions implicit in discourse, and to not use discourse
instrumentally - which i understand to be using text as if it were the
territory it describes, rather than attempting to practice what the text
is all about.
finally, i do have a question for Deborah, if she is on-line here: as i
quoted above, you wrote: "As individuated persons come together in an
experiential moment, each reflects particularistic value centers." are
you using the term "individuated" in the jungian sense of the word?
anyway, thanks for your article - i really enjoyed it.
phillip
* * * * * * * *
* *
The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.
from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.
phillip white
third grade teacher
doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.htm
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:17 PST