Ever since Bakhtin (1973, 1981), we take it as axiomatic that speech is
heteroglossic or polyphonic; that is, speech is dialogic wihtin itself.
We are born into a language and internalize speech that has a history;
it has
its sources in many voices from many dialogues, making our speech in
turn
equally multiple. ...Such a view makes every speech act not only
indirect but
contradictory and conflictual. (Litowitz, 1997, p.497).
Molly
Eva Ekeblad wrote:
> Hi Nate, Mike and all
>
> Talking about different ways of reading. I think you both will agree that
> there's more than one legitimate way of reading *the collected work*" of
> any author -- the historian's situating of each work at its stage in the
> life process, deliberately seeking NOT to know in advance where the author
> went later has its legitimate function, as does the proleptic reading of
> later generations of colleagues appropriating the work as a whole, looking
> for consistency rather than difference, as Nate writes. Or, to phrase it
> differently: reading earlier work in the teleological light of where the
> author brought it later. This may not be correct in terms of historical
> process, but I still think it is legitimate in terms of carrying on a
> tradition. At least it is very useful as an approach to learning. And I
> don't see a holistic reading as precluding critical appropriation, either.
> The way Ageliki Nicolopoulou and Jeff Weintraub read Piaget in their 1998
> article on "Individual and Collective Representations in Social Context" in
> *Human Development* 41/4 has this holistic character: where they
> acknowledge his theoretical insights about social life as an essential
> factor in development, locating both the pros of well turned formulations
> and the contras from Piaget's "more careless moments" as a writer...
> observing that while he certainly could "talk the talk" he does not really
> "walk the walk" of drawing the consequences for empirical work.
>
> Then, taking quotes out of context and letting them stand for the whole
> will always be problematic, as will simplified readings of adversaries...
> but at this point: how do I avoid drowning in the library?
>
> Eva