ematusov@udel.edu writes:
>Dialogue among all "others" about activism aiming on liberating and
>disrupting oppresive conditions, practices, and institutions (and not for
>sake of the objectively defined historic progress) can be a new beakon for
>us.
>
>What do you think?
i think this is the ideal, but difficult to achieve in an actual context
of activity, because those with the power and authority to legitimize the
kinds of changes some of us would like to see
can't always publicize an outspoken alliance - say, for instance, about
tuition fees for international students, which are obscenely high and so
determining quite specifically "who" gets access to the Western education
that is so valued overseas -
what i can see here, as possible, is an initial effort at particular kinds
of critical work.
>>i am suggesting that the text be considered as the site of its own
>>activity, not as a resource for discussion, but as an activity itself,
>and
>>one that we might read for
>>responses to that text's cultural, historical position,
referring to mr. baroway:
>Can you help ground me in something particular?
I> know you don't just pull these things out of mid-air, so there is
>more here than meets my eye. See, i don't know Jameson
>-- and I need a bridge to where you are.
i was thinking in terms of 'how to approach' a reading; that the ways we
engage with texts is itself a particular cultural activity, reflective of
particular historical activities that involve the ways
a text has meaning. jameson's suggestion that the text is an activity
offers an alternative way to read,
and an alternative approach to what our reading might mean - that is, the
text is not self-explanatory, nor a concern of specific methodological or
theoretical relevance,
but is itself a cultural-historical activity, one that we all participate
within, on a regular basis, as a part of intellectual activity.
it's a different perspective into understanding critical history, where we
ourselves are not
evaluating a theory of history, but are reckoning with our own particular
differences as
historical people, with cultural specificities that exceed a particular
discipline, but at the same time are constrained by particular cultural
locations.
it's a way to position ourselves as readers, a way to approach the text as
something more than a resource for understanding activity,
and as an activity in-itself.
it doesn't matter, so much, what gets read, then - what matters is the
approach to the reading.
in that approach,
the differences that you mention eugene, in terms of practice and
affiliation, are more likely to have
particular kinds of significance for understandings,
for cultivating meanings about history, culture, - i could offer an
posting on Jameson's text as a 'tool' for questioning our particular
cultural tools, the semantic resources we all depend upon for
understanding the relevance of a text to work or ideas, writing or
researching, and so on.
it is a critical analysis, but the objective is shifted towards
understanding differences,
as opposed to 'interpreting' theory for a particular research agenda.
it is a way to engage more diversity from practitioners here at xmca, for
one thing ... and it is a way to invite greater interpretive
possibilities, with respect to the diverse representations of participants
here.
?
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 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:23 PST