Gordon Wells raises some important issues. However what caught my eye is
some implicit matters that I think need to be kept in the foreground of
the discussion. Gordon writes:
>As I attempt to reconstruct the course my life and work has taken, I am
>very conscious that many "decisions" and actions taken or not taken were
>intimately connected with aspects of my non-professional life.
I fully agree with the spirit of Gordon's message, but it nevertheless
uses the notions of "personal vs professional" and "private vs public."
as if they were unproblematic.
Unfortunately, "personal vs professional" and "private vs public" are
social constructions and dualist constructions at that. Private/Personal
presuppose there is an isolated, atomic individual that one can refer to.
These notions are also ahistorical in that they form abstract categories.
I'm very sympathetic to Gordon's concerns. The mere fact that these
notions are social constructions does not make them meaningless - quite
the contrary. We all have to live with the consequences - which is
precisely where problems "live" (ironically in a way that transcends the
public/private "pseudo-divide.") Yet, the very fact that this divide is
both so obvious, and yet so mysterious, demands that we examine it with a
very skeptical and critical eye.
Edouard
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .
: Edouard Lagache :
: lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu :
:..................................................................:
: Python's principle of TV Morality: :
: There is nothing wrong with with sex on television, :
: just as long as you don't fall off. :
: From Murphy's Law Book-III (1982) :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .