Re: Resistance
Angel M.Y. Lin (mylin who-is-at oise.on.ca)
Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Hi Froncoise,
I think there's a point in viewing instances of oppositional behavour and
discourses as co-constructed in local concrete situations... sounds like:
it takes 2 parties to stage a quarrel and one cannot say onlyone party is
doing the quarrelling. However, since this is true of most many human
interactions (or is it not?), I guess there's still some use to the
notion of "resistance" as it's originally formulated in the classsic
studies in cultural studies (e.g., Willis). I also realize that it's
always difficult and (perhaps not very useful) to talk about "terms" in
the abstract... in each different case, the term may take on different
meanings and may be used differently by different people. The important
thing is, I guess, whether a term or a theory helps us in our inquiries
or in understanding social and educational phenomena, or in some
practical approaches to improving the situation of people... (I must
admit I'm not a big fan of the notion of theory for theory's sake :-), but
I'm digressing here!) Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Angel
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Francoise Herrmann wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, A while back in side-channeled communication over a
> paper that Jim Wertsch and Bill Penuel Wrote about identity, Jim
> Wertsch told me that when looking at issues of resistance, it is
> never clear WHO is doing the resistance. I think that this says
> much about co-construction of action, the mututality and
> responsability of it.
>
> Francoise Francoise Herrmann fherrmann who-is-at igc.org
>
>