Nate sez:
>We could also take your example of "phobias, neuroses, fears, anxieties,
>depressions, obsessive-compulsives" and ask if we are really that far off
>from each other in regards to how they need to be analyzed - thought of -
>in
>the context of activity. Does it matter if we see neuroses from a chemical
>standpoint or one where Activity is emphasized. In general I think kids
>needing to be medicated is directly related to how standards and such are
>changing how they are taught. A chemical standpoint will not bring this
>out,
>but an activity one may. For me, Activity offers the most poential in
>examining the complicated interactions you mentioned because it has the
>potential to examine it on a variety of level
hm, yes. i suppose, if you say so.
it's just that in my experience thus far, academics and theoreticians are
the least likely to be aware of their own bodily-relations with the world.
seeing it reproduced in AT merely reinforces
the illogic of Activity as somehow distinct from the body as an intricate
organic system interacting with the environment;
or perhaps it is that AT cannot really account for these relations, and
rather than address it, dismiss it, or displace it into the discourse
itself.
for me, my understandings of AT indicate a reproduction of the body-fear
that pervades most
educational theory and practice.
but as i said, i really am in the wrong class here.
thanks for the response.
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 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:53 PST