[Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class

[Andy Blunden]

Yes, as usual I was too quick to respond.
It was the end of your first message which led me astray:

    is not about the intrinsic flowering of the individual but rather is
    about the imbricated emergence of an individual who is shot through
    / consummated by others. (pace Hegel, imho).

It was not obvious what the "pace" referred to.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/


Greg Thompson wrote:
> Andy, 
> sorry for the delayed response. Like David, I think you've read my 
> post against my intentions. My point was to locate Hegel and Bakhtin 
> together so as to suggest that neither Bakhtin nor Hegel were 
> childist. Quite the opposite. 
> Still catching up.
> -greg
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Well, Hegel says very little about recognition in his mature
>     works, and I sort of doubt that Bakhtin studied the works of the
>     Young Hegel and was "influenced" or "inflected" by them, but I
>     don't know much about Bakhtin.
>
>     But I really don't know how you can connect Hegel's theory of
>     subjectivity to "childism" I really don't. Are yo ureferring to
>     the Logic, or what he has to say about education in the Philosophy
>     of Right, or his Psychology in the Philosophy of Spirit? One of
>     the bees Hegel had in his bonnet was the fad (as he saw it) for
>     wanting children to "think for themselves". Hegel thought this was
>     liberal silliness. What passage of Hegel gave you this impression,
>     Greg?
>
>
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>     Greg Thompson wrote:
>
>         Andy,
>
>         I fear that you are going to discover that I'm really a one
>         trick pony...
>
>         I read Bakhtin's notion of "consummation" as being inflected
>         by Hegel's concept of recognition (it isn't exactly the same
>         but the parallels are striking - one is consummated by the
>         gaze of the other).
>         And I think the Hegel's theory of subjectivity is
>         fundamentally contrary to the childist theory of subjectivity
>         which is more Kantian to my mind (I fear that may take a lot
>         of explaining, but I'll leave it at that for now).
>
>         I'd love to hear more from David about what he thinks the
>         consequences are of taking on a childist approach. What is
>         lost in that approach? And similarly, what is gained by taking
>         a more Vygotskian approach?
>         -greg
>
>
>         On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Andy Blunden
>         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
>             why do you say "pace Hegel" Greg?
>
>             andy
>            
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             *Andy Blunden*
>             http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>         <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>
>             Greg Thompson wrote:
>
>                 David,
>                 Yes, you caught what I was saying in your
>         parenthetical. My
>                 point was that
>                 Vera nicely lays out and critiques the dominant view of
>                 creativity - i.e.
>                 the one where creativity is anti-social.
>
>                 And I'd add that in my reading of Bakhtin, I have
>         difficulty
>                 imagining him
>                 as a childist, not because of his disdain for children (a
>                 topic of which I
>                 had no knowledge prior to your post), but because I
>         see him as
>                 drawing on a
>                 different understanding of human subjectivity - one
>         that draws
>                 from a
>                 tradition that is not about the intrinsic flowering of the
>                 individual but
>                 rather is about the imbricated emergence of an
>         individual who
>                 is shot
>                 through / consummated by others. (pace Hegel, imho).
>
>                 -greg
>
>