-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 11:04 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: Prototypical defining middle class
Hi Nate and everybody--
Nate, I'm a bit confused about your message. Can you clarify it, please?
> As far as it not being dominant, I think that's too strong. But it was
> explicitly dominating rather than the "middle class" version of the world
> where it is assumed as a natural state or progression.
>
"Do I understand you correctly that you question that there was time in 19th
century when "middle class" was not dominant? I think it was. For example in
the first half of 19th century, the dominant discourse in the high Russian
society as reflected in high literature was issues of "honor" (among others)
that it seems to me belong to voice of nobility (e.g., Pushkin's "The
captain's daughter," in Chadsky "The trouble because of smartness," and in
Lermontov "The hero of our time"). In the second part of 19th century, the
discourse shifted to "eternal questions" described by Dostoevsky but you can
find them in Leo Tolstoy as well (e.g., in "War and Peace" or in
"Resurrection")."
No, I was talking about it more in lines with "development" that emerged
slowly over the 20th century. Your example is speaking towards the specific
cultural-historic experiences of Russia and I don't know how well that
applies to the U.S. I would tend to define "middleclass" with a particular
liberal way of governing as outlined by Foucault and Rose. And yes there was
a time that way of governing or middleclass was not dominant. I also would
agree with Foucault and Rose that the dominant position of the middleclass
had a particular relationship to science.
"Can you elaborate about Uzbekistan, please? I do not know the history of
the
region well, but it seems to me that in pre-Soviet Uzbekistan there was
non-Russian and religion-based literature (Farsi and Arabic, probably). Of
course, there was very rich oral literacy. I've heard that in different
historic time there was different rate of literacy spread in Uzbekistan. I'm
sure that the current Uzbeki nationalist renaissance is based on that
literacy and not on Russian-Soviet literacy. But I can be wrong -- it is my
guess. I'm glad to know more details about the mater."
Yes, there was religion based literature, but my understanding from Luria's
work was that "literacy" was selective and very few had access to it. My
point was in forming a "pre-soviet" Uzbekistan identity it was a version of
literacy that was very Russian and a result of Luria's work and the literacy
campaigns. I agree with you that there was a rich oral tradition and that
was sort of the point. Now, this was a conversation that ocurred orally from
someone that was on leave and returning to do their dissertation in
Uzbekistan. This was a few years ago and from my understanding within the
political context of reasserting Uzbekistan as opposed to Russian culture in
schools and other aspects of society. To be Uzbeki meant to be literate in
the "western" definition of the term as in reading and writing.
"I'm not sure I follow the analogy with Vygotsky's "genetic law" -- can you
elaborate, please?"
On a more collective level what is explicit or contested at a particular
time in history becomes "internalized" or naturalized in the present.
Textbooks are an example of this, their creation from the publishers,
legislature, and other stakeholders is a political and contested process yet
by the time they reach the classroom they become naturalized as facts or
what history is. I was thinking of the genetic law more as a collective than
individual process in that things that are public or contested at one
historical time become "internalized" at a later point in time. This
internalization has both positive and negative consequences.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:56 PST