hi folks,
a recent discussion about psychoanalysis prompted a rant, from
yours truly, which i think might be useful here, in terms of
differentiating between theory and pragmatics, french theory and american
pragmatics, and the cultural divides that lead to misrepresentations
and misconceptions of "what is theory for?" in terms of "where does theory
come from?" to whit:
a big difference between american and french psychoanalytic theory is that
american scholars try to use the theory in theory;
and european psychoanalytic theorists are analysts-in-practice,
and consider the theory in the contexts of their work with people - so
the european's pragmatic application is very much bound in their work
with others, in the contexts of therapy - this is precisely what Pedro was
getting on about, re CHAT, and the pragmatics of education,
vs the pragmatics of therapy, where the contexts are much more
affectively-organized, where the practitioner is dealing with people's
pain, suffering, vulnerabilities, frailties, and so on -
this is one area widely misrepresented, i think, betwixt the european and
american positions on theory - americans tend to piggy-back whatever is
fashionable, and then complain about its applications,
whereas europeans are usually speaking/theorizing in-relation to their
specific practice,
Derrida, for instance, is writing about writing AS a writer, and a
linguist -
it's his field, so the ethics apply to his work,
but when queer theory, for example, lifts the theory out of that context
and then complains it is too "high" they are missing the context of the
author's
practice;
just as Julia Kristeva is a psychoanalyst, and writes from her experience
without exploiting her patients,
and even Freud himself was theorizing based upon what people in pain
were telling him, - to remove that context of practice
and then attempt to place the theory into another area where the affective
domain does not have a language (e.g. Education) is bound to
produce misconceptions of what any particular theory is for, regarding the
inextricable context of where that theory has come from -
a rant! hah! it's burbling in my head after reading an article on how
neuroscientists have proven Freud's theory wrong - oiy!! like the psyche
is somehow supposed to be measurable in the brain!! oiy!!
the problem of pragmatics and theory is always in this lust for proof -
the empirical dominance over the symbolic functions of culture and such.
i like psychoanalysis for the way it emphasizes the semiotics and symbolism
of language, as primary in human existence, as both lived - fleshed
and represented in mindful ways, always about relations, always
in-relation.
and the language of compassion is there, in a theory that speaks of
grief, loss, despair, abjection, desire, love, relations, gender,
attachment,
and so on.
i see great potential for analysis in speaking about the absent human
element of emotive experience in real-life contexts,
the suffering person, the loving person, the desiring person, the EFFECT
of crisis, trauma,
and so on - a language of compassion can only come from a language
or theory that can speak of love and attachment in ways
that are both material and symbolic, i think - and my "agenda" is to write
a language of compassionate practice into the tower, somehow,
even if it only bounced off the walls of the smallest room,
- i think american educators underestimate how much of their
practice/teaching
is based upon affect - empathy, understanding, personal loss, affection,
and so on.
i also think americans are more repressed, frankly... more embarrassed
or ashamed of their bodies, their emotions, and the roles these play
in practice, particularly intellectual/educative practice.
diane
**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:27 PDT