My particular concerns were with how we use the notion of contradiction
to understand what individuals do in this or that situation. The two
main protagonists (and co-authors) in our account did not do what they
did because of some structural contradiction any one of us on this list
might be able to identify, that is, for example, the contradiction
apparent in the achievement ideology of American society and the praxis
of schooling. What is relevant--so Holzkamp--are the grounds for action
which are always (and only) mine ("je meine"). Holzkamp uses a
discourse based on "grounds" (Begründungsdiskurs).
Il'enkov, by articulating ideality in terms something objectively
experienced but outside human consciousness, focuses on the
sociocultural and cultural-historical dimensions of our experience. But
there is, as Derrida (1998) recognized consistent with KH, a very
personal, subjective dimension in the sense of Dubrovsky. For example,
at the very instant that I articulate my most private thoughts, my
inner-most being of self, I do so in language (or some other form)
which is already something that is not myself. Even though my grounds
for action are always mine, they are also not mine because I can
articulate them for others and in ways intelligible to them, that is,
the grounds are not only mine but possible grounds.
And this is where I see the two as dialectically related, Il'enkov
framing the possibilities of acting, that which is objectively
available to all of us participating in the culture, and
Dubrovsky/Holzkamp framing the possibilities that I concretely realize
at the moment of acting.
Ya-Meer is not just Ya-Meer, but in his actions he is realizing a
possibility; but these possibilities cannot be understood just by
looking at Ya-Meer, they are aspects of his culture, which provides for
the possibilities to be and talk and experience as he does.
I am not sure this makes my point clearer.
On 23-Sep-04, at 2:56 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
> My copy of Bakhurst's book has been "borrowed" and I need to get a new
> one in order to evaluate the parallel you set up,Michael, which I take
> to be Ilyenkov: Engestrom as Durborksy: Holtzkamp. I am on of those
> who follows the branch of thought laid out by steve. At the same time,
> I get nervous about invocation of ideas such as responding to
> in general, rather than as experienced in life.
> What specific issue in your article and thinking about identity hinges
> this debate?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:04 PST