This idea of positive critical theory really struck a chord with me. I've
been anxious over the years about how negative critical theory can be,
always focussing on discourse in the service of power - its use to
dominate and control. In my education work their role has often seemed to
be one of saying - stop, you're making things worse, you're just
reinforcing hegemonic discourses... but if I say, okay, well, what are the
alternatives... where are your descriptions of positive change... they
don't seem able to respond. Is there some kind of pathology here... why
look only at the negative? I guess it is more comfortable in some respect
to be able to say smugly 'I told you so'... ??? I think what we need is a
lot more celebratory discourse analysis!
Jim Martin
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Charles Bazerman wrote:
> Mike,
> I am not quite sure exactly how you might see positive critical
> theory, but I would hope that all the concepts I work with are guided by a
> spirit of critical, reflexive, informed participation--that is knowing
> what you are doing with others, making decisions about what is worth
> doing, and trying to figure out how to do it better. Critical theory as it
> has largely emerged has helped people identify those participations that
> don't wish to engage in and has given them some means to identify details
> of disengagement. That's good, people should get out of bad deals and
> should try to keep bad deals from being foisted upon them. On the other
> hand, we also need to figure out what the good deals are and how to pull
> them off successfully. Critical theory (as part of what has been called
> a culture of suspicion) has given us little guidance on this participatory
> end. Generally we have more than enough reasons to suspect each other and
> to be cautious in our interactions, and few enough positive experiences of
> complex satisfying interactions to maintain the sociality whioch is our
> medium of existence, so that people regularly resort to less than
> satisfying interpersonal strategies to meet their needs, which only
> undermine our sociality further. What we need more of are ways to
> positively identify what we need and agree to do and the means of
> accomplishing them.
>
> With respect to "reliably reconstitutable phenomena," I suppose
> one could say that was a critical way of identifying what some scientific
> practices do or make, as opposed to critically pointing out all the things
> they don't do, that some people have claimed they do.
> Your investigations of active cognition in situ and projects of
> growing activity in vitro as ways of extending cognition I see as moved by
> similar impulses of understanding that
> people are always trying to do things by their own best lights, no matter
> how things may look from various distanced perspectives--and that one can
> usually be of most help and support by working with and providing tools
> for people's current projects (unless they are clearly destructive) and
> the best way to draw people in new or more ambitious directions is to
> provide conditions, opportunities, tools, and guidance that attract them
> into new areas of activity and participation.
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> >
> > Chuck-- I like your idea of Reliably Reconstitutable Phenomena. I think
> > it fits somehow with the notion of a "positive critical theory" that
> > I have been playing with. Might they be thought of as coordinated
> > sets of lenses?
> >
> > I also think this is related to the strategy I developed in
> > the work described in Cultural Psychology. (On that topic, chapters 8-9
> > seem either to have confused people or they are on vacation, or....
> > Myself, I got a fine week away from work and near some beautiful
> > mountains and lakes and trout.
> > mike
> >
> >
>
>