[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FYI - Bramble House is ME, Diane Hodges, HI!
I just saw my message and realized no one will know what the hell Bramble
House is... it's a store I run, own, whatever, in a little village here in
Quebec, where I sell UK products to the minority of UK ex-pats who live
here... ever supplying the minority with their needs, I reckon. Ha.
La Maison Bramble House
19 Valois Bay Avenue
Pointe Claire, QC H9R 4B4
Tel: (514) 630-6363
Fax: (514) 344-2994
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bramble House" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: math for reproduction and domination
> Hi all.
> It's been a while (like, years?) since I've posted anything; partly
> I've not had a lot to contribute, and partly (I found out recently, and
> thanks again Bruce for fixing that) because my email addresses were
> confused... but I am thoroughly and quite completely compelled to add a
> smattering of applause here to Michael and Kevin for their sweet sounds of
> dissension (or as bb notes, this "trouble-making" ...!)
> *quick kisses to little-b bill, I've always loved your enthusiasm and keen
> sense of cool, fair and funny gender play, and nearly feminist
> Michael writes: "You may not be interested in this kind of trouble making,
> but in this
> you make a choice as to the nature of the society you live in. I think
> a dose of social analysis of the kind Dorothy Smith, who argues for a
> feminist sociology, is required to interrogate our ideologies so that
> we can bring about a rupture. Bourdieu, too, asks us, as social
> analysts, to break with the gaze through radical analysis of our own
> ...and then Kevin follows up with:
> "I just have to quickly comment on the concrete versus "philosophical
> I think that anyone advocating for disrupting hegemony is in part
> marginalized automatically by the fact that the "concrete" is more likely
> include reified artifacts of the dominant ideology. So staying in the
> "concrete" arguably means valuing the reified dominant ideology over any
> alternatives and considering alternatives can always be seen as "abstract"
> or "philosophical" or "non-concrete" precisely because reified artifacts
> reflect the cultural-historical-political status quo one may seek to
> This reminds me of footnoting "hegemony" in my lone article in MCA, and
> feeling as if I might be explaining polar ice caps to desert nomads. Hee
> hee. I kid.
> I just have to admit that this language of ideology and these references
> Dorothy Smith, eeeeeeeeeh, ... well, it all just makes me WET! :)
> Kevin's "reified artifacts of the dominant ideology..." Oooooh. Yesh.
> LOVE it.
> Thanks guys. Really. This sort of thing almost makes me wish I were back
> the thick of it all.
> By the way, hey Jay. You're still rocking all the boats. Good on you.
> Cheers y'all.
> little-d diane
> Diane Hodges
> La Maison Bramble House
> 19 Valois Bay Avenue
> Pointe Claire, QC H9R 4B4
> Tel: (514) 630-6363
> Fax: (514) 344-2994
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wolff-Michael Roth" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: math for reproduction and domination
> > Hi Bill,
> > I am not one of those editors who imposes his/her view of the world on
> > others. I recognize the work in itself, even though I might disagree
> > with the content. You notice that my own paper dealt with the
> > production and reproduction of identity in the context of urban
> > science, and the fragility of "success" to be and become a student or
> > teacher.
> > You may not be interested in this kind of trouble making, but in this
> > you make a choice as to the nature of the society you live in. I think
> > a dose of social analysis of the kind Dorothy Smith, who argues for a
> > feminist sociology, is required to interrogate our ideologies so that
> > we can bring about a rupture. Bourdieu, too, asks us, as social
> > analysts, to break with the gaze through radical analysis of our own
> > presuppositions.
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> > On 11-Nov-04, at 8:52 AM, Bill Barowy wrote:
> > > On Thursday 11 November 2004 11:24 am, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> > >> historical situation of the activity system. You seem to advocate
> > >> we can understand children's and their teachers' actions just by
> > >> looking at a classroom.
> > >
> > > I just can't believe YOU edited MY paper in MCA and can still make
> > > that claim!
> > > I'm going to step back and look at our own conversation. This is not
> > > the
> > > kind of troublemaking i'm interested in.
> > >
> > > bb
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >