Re: empty or not
Charles Bazerman (bazerman who-is-at humanitas.ucsb.edu)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Jay,
Since Latour's networks are all about domination, control,
leaving one's mark upon the world and upon others, enlistment, and like
notions, I can understand why you might be attracted to it as a critical
lens, given your critique of most arrangements in the world, at least the
world of education. But it baffles me why you then also take Latour as
providing an accurate model of human possibilities, or more precisely,
human nature that is realizable in many possibilities.
If we are to take Latour's networks seriously (and I am not sure
we should see networks as much more than a device to shake up other
entrenched
assumptions, and thus its heuristic attraction), it seems to me that we
need to reconceive them without the driving force of the will to dominate
that seems to be the glue of Latour's entrepreneurial network-making.
Cheers,
Chuck
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Jay Lemke wrote:
All the
> processes and activities are still there, but now they are there
> in networks of activities which cross the Cartesian boundary, which
> dissolve that boundary, and define units of analysis with respect
> to which BOTH the personal and the social are constituted, rather
> than constitutive. JAY.
>
>
> JAY LEMKE.
> City University of New York.
> BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
> INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
>
>