judy asks
>I don't understand how collective action can be possible if inidividual
>participants can't negotiate their positions; I don't understand how
>negotiation is possible if meaning isn't recognized as more than
>referential -- positions are social and idiosyncratic every one. I don't
>understand how or WHY we reduce individuals to whatever denominator serves
>us -- oh, they're discourse people: they have no credibility. Oh, they're
>empiricists, they don't get it,. Oh, he's XYZ -- I know, because so and so
>said so.
this is about the presumption of knowledge - people who make a living as
"those in the know" as in university-paid "knowers" have to assume the
positions of knowers. so that's what they do. who can actually admit they
don't know? when your "specialization" is challenged by different
discourses, who's going to sit back and say, "yes, this makes sense, i
agree," ?
few.
i really doubt any "specialized" theory can account for the complexities
of life outside the specialization. discourse creates its own reality, it
doesn't understand anything, but itself.
discourse, by it's being discourse, cannot produce reflections of anything
other than what makes the discourse seem righteous. paradox.
so discourse _has_ to be dismissive. that's how it survives its locution.
the reproducers/speakers/imitators are just tools of the discourse.
nothing personal. (aye! there's the rub of it, eH?)
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 Feb 01 2001 - 14:24:55 PST