Re: [xmca] concept as gambit

From: Mary K. Bryson (
Date: Thu Nov 17 2005 - 20:38:34 PST

On 11/17/05 8:03 PM, "Victor" <> wrote:

> Sorry if I've misunderstood your message, but it appears to me that the
> subjective (in the sense of strictly internal reflective activity),

I am just going to focus on this part, as it has been a long arduous day,
and this phrase along can be shown to perform exactly the point where
subjectivity is differently construed...

The "subjective" is not in my view, and I would argue, in CHAT world, and
likewise in object-relations theory -- not "internal activity" -- what we
call subjectivity is always-already external to, and in excess of, and maybe
even a-priori external and relational. Within western modernism, we may have
ways of talking about something like "self" or "subjectivity" where as an
object of discourse, it is located "internally" -- most western folks act is
if subjectivity of necessity is internal in order to be able to talk
sensibly about something like agency, a Me who is unique --- cogito ergo sum
and all that tradition...

But if inter-subjectivity locates subjectivity transitively, across subjects
and objects, then its representation as "internal" is analytically

And so my interest in the work of Stetsenko, as I interpret her scholarship
on "self" as leading activity and a cultural object within the realm of the

Performance before competence, as Cazden reminds us...


xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 01:00:08 PST