Judy said:
"Is the xmca community a "complex unity" in which there is some
"concrete universal" that will decide who's in and who's out (a pretty
abstract conception of community)"
"or is it a complex heterogeneous non-unity in which diverse participants
bring a broad range of topics to bear on the CHAT tradition and vice
versa -- e.g., IS, feminism, etc. framed by and framing CHAT --"
______________________________________________
In *Perspectives on Activity Theory*, Engestrom mentions,
" Some may fear that activity theory will turmn into an ecclectic
combination of ideas before it has had a chance to redefine its core.
Although I realize such a possibility exists, I anticipate that the current
expansive reconstruction of activity theory will actually lead to a new type
of theory. Essential to this emerging theory is multovoicedness coexisting
with monism. This may sound like a contradiction, and that is exactly what
it is"
A paragraph later he mentions,
"Such a multivoicedness should not regard internal contradictions and
debates as a sign of weakness; rather, they are an feature of the theory.
However; this requires at least a shared understanding of the character of
the initial cell and a continuous collective attempt to elucidate that cell,
as well as the miltiple mediating steps from the cell to specific concepts".
I don't know exactly how this fits with the two questions Judy posed, but
the second question makes me uncomfortable. This is what I "mis"understood
Paul argueing for awhile back in the COP discussion. Maybe it makes me
uncomfortable because it positions multivoicedness in anarchy terms rather
in terms of an collective object. I think XCMA has an object and I don't
necessarily see it as CHAT, but rather multivoicedness itself. I guess I
would say there is a unity or object involved although that object is of the
ideal kind. Our tensions - this discussion - being the contradiction between
the object of XCMA and our individual or collective goals.
In reading Eva's papers, looking through the archives etc. it appears
multivoidedness surfaces as an object. For example, the lchc graduate
school program that was committed to diversity that Reagan defunded was a
motive for the list serv to emerge. I guess I am trying to think of
multivoicedness more in terms of an object than the definition of community,
society etc. as merely a collection of individuals.
I think multivoicedness as an object can possibly bring forth different
questions. We can look at the contradiction of individual/collective goals
of voicedness - power, audience, etc - and the object of the multivoicedness
ideal. While its of course true a community can not exist without
individuals I am uncomfortable with reducing it to individuals.
Or, this may be just me imposing what I have always valued so much about
XCMA.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:10 PST