Well, yet again I need to be more precise, don't I.
I suppose what I mean it that, on one end, no two people see the world just
the same way, and at the other we all share the "illusion" that money has
value. I suppose this means that we all start with a number things we pick
up from living in the same capitalist world: the Zeitgeist, the world
market, the dominant social forces and realities, which are the basis of
"ideology". Although we all look at the world from different viewpoints, we
all look at the same world, with its characteristic mirages and illusions.
It could be said that someone looking at it from a "privileged" position is
more able to free themselves from what is illusory, in a better position to
be critical at least in thought if not in action.
Andy
At 08:26 PM 30/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Andy
>
>
>
>It will be interesting to check/test your (and Victors?) hypothesis about
>*all* member of bourgeois society& sharing& the same illusions. I
>personally doubt that members of upper class (old moneys) would agree with
>I believe if you put an effort into anything, you can get ahead&(Strauss,
>1992, p. 202) But it will be nice to check that. I wish somebody made a
>study like Claudia Strauss did with members of working, middle, and upper
>class people.
>
>
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:39 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
>
>
>
>Here we come back to what someone (Victor?) said about *all* members of
>bourgeois society, whatever class, sharing in the first place, the same
>illusions. Class consciousness and solidarity are attitudes I think which
>have to be learnt through definite kinds of experience; such experiences
>are not to be had in the home, generally are not conveyed in TV; perhaps
>the first experiences are in gang-like interactions at school?
>
>Andy
>
>At 07:23 PM 30/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Dear Andy, I think you are right on the target talking about, what Jim Gee
>calls, projective identity. The question that I have is how and why
>working class people participate in middle-class cultural model(or way of
>talking).
>
>
>
>It is not the case that working class people accept any middle class
>cultural modelthat available via TV or other popular media. Although I do
>not have much data about that but I doubt that many working class people
>would buy middle class cultural model of child fostering based on
>constantly giving kids choices. So the question is why some working class
>people project themselves in self-actualizationmiddle-class cultural model
>but not in child-rearing through choice-makingmiddle-class cultural model.
>I do not think the preference of working class people in adapting
>middle-class models can be explained simply by watching TV. Any ideas?
>
>
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 6:38 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
>
>
>
>We could put this together with Jim Gee's observations about play. People
>are growing up acting out characters that they see on TV. They believe
>that they can make their own character. But this turns out to be a
>frustrated experience; they only get to play Doug Heffernan. ... Andy
>
>
>Claudias study shows that also working class men widely hold this
>self-actualizationcultural model they do and cannot enact it (but rather
>they act out of necessity-based being a breadwinnercultural model). Victor
>or anybody else, can you explain what makes proliferation of cultural
>modelsthat people deeply hold but cant enact, please?
>Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST