Dear everybody--
Thanks, Kevin, a lot for elaboration of your position -- it is very helpful
and useful (at least for me but I'm sure for many other XMCA people). One
technical question. You wrote,
> Freire entreats us that literacy is about "reading and writing the word,
> in order to read and write the world;"
Can your provide references for this famous quote, please? I realized that I
learned this quote from other people rather than reading it.
Pual wrote,
>events are not history, but what happens (the
> events) are
> "intelligible" not simply from the perspective of the people who are
> involved in them, but more importantly from the perspective of the forces
> that created the situations to which the people responded, and
> these forces
> are material (ie, geographic, economic, and of course cultural --
> the ideal
> is a material dimension --). Histories can either make these events
> intelligible from the perspective of causal relations that generated the
> situations (e.g., Marx's theory of cycles of capitalist
> expansion), or they
> can make these events intelligible from the perspective of how the actor's
> experienced them. And, of course, there is a dialectic relationship
> between these two dimensions (e.g. E.P. Thompson's study of the
> poet William
> Blake is quite interesting in this respect).
> "Histories can either make these events intelligible from the
> perspective of causal relations that generated the situations (e.g.,
> Marx's theory of cycles of capitalist expansion), or they can make these
> events intelligible from the perspective of how the actor's experienced
> them. And, of course, there is a dialectic relationship between these
> two dimensions (e.g. E.P. Thompson's study of the poet William Blake is
> quite interesting in this respect)."
I really appreciate Paul's emphasis of two aspects of history
"intelligibility" and the "significance" and his warning against paralyzing
relativism of text interpretation.
However, I respectfully disagree with Paul and, thus, with Thompson, that
there are only two pathways through which histories make events
intelligible -- causal analyses and the (a?) perspective on actor's personal
experiences. There many other pathways such dialogues of generations through
time, art expressions, ideologies (e.g., in Kosovo conflict), bureaucracies,
creating imagined communities, mythology, and so on. I wonder where these
prioritization of causal analyses of history and personal perspectives come
from -- why did Thomspon only list these two?
Also, there are many causal analyses possible and Marx's is just one of them
(although, I'm not saying that Paul insists on the opposite point). I think
it is important to get away from monologic power of any theory that attempts
to monopolize a discourse and reduce anything to one type of realm or
sphere. At some point of Soviet Union history, any discussion was reduced to
class struggle which was a way to get rid of (in a literal sense) of any
opposition to the power group of the day in any sphere of public practice.
What do you think?
Eugene
PS It is true that gravity exists "out there" but it is known to us in only
in our relationships and our deals. Even my statement "it is true that
gravity exists 'out there'" can be proven wrong in future (like statement,
"it is true that flexogon exists 'out there'") or its meaning may be
changed beyond its recognition. Following Latour, it is safe to say that the
statement "it is true that gravity exists 'out there'" sustains
possible/available criticism and has a high modality appearing to be a fact
so far. The statement itself belongs to the network of existing practices,
relationships, and institutions.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Rocap [mailto:krocap@csulb.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:22 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: history-text relations
>
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> My apologies, I actually thought that as I was framing it I was honoring
> both your contributions and Dianne's and Martin's. It is far from true
> that for me that there is nothing but text (and I'm not sure I read
> Dianne or Martin that way either). I am an activist at heart and in
> fact. And certainly even theories of Textuality with a capital "T"
> don't presuppose that they are referring only to text with a small "t."
> Freire entreats us that literacy is about "reading and writing the word,
> in order to read and write the world;" I don't read him as sporting a
> bourgeois notion of text with a small "t."
>
> I actually thought that of the parties involved, Dianne or Martin might
> take exception to what I wrote rather than you. Clearly I've
> unknowingly and unintentionally tripped a sensitive chord. Again, my
> apologies.
>
> I appreciate Wallerstein's world system theory contributions, was weaned
> on them in undergraduate studies of political economy, though certainly
> lack your expertise. And when you write:
>
> "Histories can either make these events intelligible from the
> perspective of causal relations that generated the situations (e.g.,
> Marx's theory of cycles of capitalist expansion), or they can make these
> events intelligible from the perspective of how the actor's experienced
> them. And, of course, there is a dialectic relationship between these
> two dimensions (e.g. E.P. Thompson's study of the poet William Blake is
> quite interesting in this respect)."
>
> Perhaps you are suggesting that "interpretation," "causal analysis,"
> "perspective" or "history" are also material and structural processes,
> and that, perhaps, you can "read" situations themselves as
> "interpretations" of historical-structural forces that have propelled
> them. I don't deny that; it is the notion of "histories making
> intelligible" that still sounds to me like a primarily a textual
> undertaking (and here I suppose I'm leaning to the small "t' side).
>
> But perhaps the dialogue about learning and expansion will offer some
> new ways of thinking about all of this. I am offering an olive branch.
> Further conversations can certainly occur offlist, Paul.
>
> I'm absolutely sure that I am missing nuances of your comments Paul, but
> not intentionally, I have only my own "psychological instruments" to
> blame.
>
> In Peace,
> K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:39 PDT