>This post would betoken a fairly high
>comfort level, wouldn't it??
Yes, it would -- but then, I don't know the immediate context of exchange that
it responds to.
I'd like to point out what i noticed right off about the excerpt you
selected, that it has markers of deference as well as assertiveness.
Certainly individual xmca participants develop xmca styles over time, and I
don't mean to compare any particular xmca-ers to particular Bourdieu list
participants. There have always been diffrences among xmca-ers as to
relative authoritativeness, responsiveness to others, etc. I think, though,
that what is behind the current tension is the perception that certain
challenges to the positions of others do not engage with those positions
enough to challenge specific points.
To engage in dialog, each party has to HEAR the other. This may be the crux
of the issue, rather than assertiveness. We each have the option of
addressing particular messages or not; if we choose to address them, we
should, in my ideal world, engage them imaginatively; imagine the
perspective that orients the other. That's a personal preference, of course,
but it is also what I think has made this list dear to so many different
kinds of participants. Aren't folks more inclined to listen to those who
take up their perspectives at least momentarily?
There is also a question of assertiveness/ politeness. It's easier to
imagine a position that is not being slammed in my face. I'm more likely to
mull over some one's view that is made available to others for whatever they
might want to make of it, than a view that is asserted as universal, that
imputes "false consciousness" to anyone who sees differently. That
immediately puts me at odds with anyone who believes they know the truth.
And then there is simply 'personal taste' -- the interpersonal values
embedded in habitus. No accounting for style...
A message from Paul just came in:
>Isn't the basis of that
>participation an active interest/pursuit of the range of topics listed on
>the MCA website and also on Nate's voting window? Other than that who is
>the collective we?
That indeed is the collective 'we'
Isn't it something in construction by the very
>participation here?
It is in construction, hopefully to become, hopefully always becoming a COP
that welcomes newcomers and affords interaction across degrees and kinds of
expertise. That, anyway, is the vision I take from the 5th D.
I'm about to get back on my treadmill, so I'm hesitant about sending this --
I won't be back until I can find the pause button again. I'm very interested
in what others have to say, however, & I'll keep reading what appears in my
inbox.
for now, Judy
>> >Even then, let us take Bourdieu's 'habitus'. The same concept can be
>> >found all over the place, such as in Elias.
>>
>> Yes, but does it have the same meaning? My point is surely not very
>> controversial. Until recently, theories have always been taken as
>> incompatible, perhaps even incommensurable. (This is certainly the case in
>> physics.)
>
>This is not the case. Theories are not incommensurable in physics.
>They have the intransitive dimension, the world, against which they may
>be ultimately compared and evaluated. What you seem to be doing here is
>to redescribe a series of perspectives as incommensurable paradigms.
>>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:02 PST