I agree a lot David: we have a problem, we got here for good reasons, but
it is a serious problem, there's no simple solution, and the solution being
imposed by the neocons is worse than the disease.
But I don't agree with your tentative solution, a retreat to conscience (if
I understand you correctly, probably I didn't), we live in a big world and
I think we want to go on living in a big world: we need a new ethic, we
actually have to resolve an ethos for living together which resolves both
the problems which got us here and the problems we've found when we got
here! :-)
Andy
At 07:12 AM 29/01/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>Andy,
>
>The fear of relativism seems to be that it erodes moral standards. After
>all, if my moral standards are just local to my groups or culture, then
>other groups or cultures are entitled to their own standards--an especially
>difficult dilemma when we recognize the heterogeneity of cultural identity,
>and hence that such shifting standards might need to be applied within our
>community. So we become locked into a Hobbesian choice of being willing to
>defend what are taken to be universal Moral standards (which from a
>historical perspective we see as often playing out as unbridled
>self-interest acted upon with ferocious and amoral tenacity), versus the
>absence of any sort of moral compass.
>
>Clearly there's no simple solution. To deny our relativist interpretation
>in order to retain the ability to act is to do serious damage to what--for
>better or for worse--we have become. Right now we have no solution, but
>perhaps we can evolve toward one that recognizes the limited and
>self-centered location of our own values, but acts on them nonetheless.
>This would involve self-consciously selfish moral actions--moral acts done
>without the righteous indignation that inevitably powers Moral acts. In
>this way we retain at least a limited possibility of moral action, with the
>dilemma of relativism effectively shifted from the state of the world to
>the battleground of our own conscience.
>
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
> Blunden
>
> <ablunden@mira.ne To: "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> t> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> Sent by: cc: (bcc: David H
> Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
> xmca-bounces who-is-at webe Subject: RE: [xmca]
> Action Research and its relationship
> r.ucsd.edu to SCHAT -
> Whiggism?
>
>
>
>
> 01/29/2007
> 02:04
> AM
>
> Please respond
> to
> "eXtended
> Mind,
> Culture,
>
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>But Jay, the kind of rant against historical ladders which I think you are
>fond of, signal to me and to social conservatives, a kind of moral
>relativism which is a real life-on-earth-threatening problem at the moment,
>
>a view which sustains a kind of egotism which is eroding the very
>foundations of social life. Is modernism of the Fordist variety the main
>enemy today? Jay, I am sure that you are not such an egotist (you wouldn't
>be on xmca if you were), but that is exactly how this rant against
>democracy and progress sounds to those think that Christianity, family and
>democracy are things worth defending, or those that think that unionism,
>social solidarity, education, universal rights and public utilities are
>worth defending.
>
>Andy
>
>At 10:17 PM 28/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >I think you've read me a little too literally. I hardly think that US
> >conservatives are either homogeneous on these matters or that they take a
> >genuinely historical view of things. I wish they did! I was using the
> >notion of Whiggish history to exemplify a tendency to naturalize those
> >aspects of how things are that are also in our own, or our class interest.
> >
> >There are a lot of things that US conservatives think are quite natural
> >and necessary and part of God's natural order, to which civilization has
> >risen through long experience -- like abominating sex of any kind they
> >don't like, or insisting that marriage can only be between a man and a
> >woman. It's the "basics" about which they are Whiggish. Or consider their
> >absolute certainty that the USA is the natural leader of the free world,
> >the freeest and most liberal country, and has the best system of
> >government evolved by history. Or indeed that democracy is the last and
> >highest step on the ladder of political thought and that in all the
> >millennia that humans may have left, nothing better will ever come along.
> >Etc. And that goes double for born-again christianity.
> >
> >Of course they are also out to advance their interests beyond the present
> >state of things, which in many respects is not ideal for them. And that is
>
> >where the political magic of coalition building comes in. The Bushes, and
> >a lot of other western political leaders, are heavily "invested" in Saudi
> >oil, and a little gay-bashing was a small price to pay for the votes to
> >enable them to defend their interests against Saddam's perceived threat.
> >On the other side, quasi-christian fundamentalists recruit more good ol'
> >boys by being gung-ho adventurist 'patriots' (i.e. nuke the muslims) than
> >by paying any attention to Jesus' views on such matters. Of course, there
> >has always been a minority ahistorical strain in christianity ... it
> >spawns wacko cults by the dozen every century and always has.
> >
> >The problem with trying to understand how other people think politically
> >is that it is often a total mashup of reasonable principles, disguised
> >self-interest, and totally schizoid blindness to blazing contradiction. By
>
> >contrast, a Whig is an ideal type rarely met with, as you note.
> >
> >Our major problem in the US is that we have, except here and there online,
>
> >no public forums where alternative views are really discussed in ways that
>
> >might bring out some of these problems. When I watch the BBC, centrist as
> >it seems to me, I weep because at least they always present two points of
> >view on every political issue that actually sound like they're different.
> >Every night. In the US, when that happens, it means we are in a dangerous
> >political crisis.
> >
> >JAY.
> >
> >
> >At 02:35 AM 1/24/2007, you wrote:
> >>Jay, I certainly take seriously your injunction for us to try harder to
> >>understand how other people think politically, but I am not sure that I
> >>agree with your observations.
> >>
> >>Firstly, you refer to a "Whiggish" view of history as being dominant. But
>
> >>I just don't see it (in far away Melbourne). The view of history that I
> >>see in people who claim the mantle of conservatism who are calling the
> >>political tune at the moment, is a very belittling and dismissive one.
> >>These people seem willing to invent new Churches from scratch with no
> >>regard whatsoever for the experience of millennia of Christianity, invent
>
> >>new labour laws from the top of their head, without regard for how the
> >>current systems are the way they are, set off on new Crusades without
> >>ever having experienced war or thought about the lessons of past wars,
> >>abolish age-old institutions willy nilly, and so on. It is more likely
> >>progressives like most of us on xmca who argue that institutions are like
>
> >>they are for very good reasons. Honest conservatives, Whigs if you like,
> >>are scarce as hen's teeth these days.
> >>
> >>Secondly, who thinks we are in the best of all possible worlds, "the
> >>crown of creation" because that's the way it *has* to be? I think people
> >>(especially maybe young people) who have actually never ever thought
> >>about the way things are at all, never reflected on history at all, could
>
> >>be imputed with this kind of view, if you believe in imputing views based
>
> >>on things other than holding them. Of those who have a view about history
>
> >>and the way things are, almost everyone seems to think things are in a
> >>bad way and getting worse. In fact the very impossibility of even
> >>imagining that things could ever improve and the ease of imagining a
> >>global disaster is one of the biggest problems we have. It is, I think,
> >>people who claim that "all the grand narratives have ended" and "people
> >>no longer believe in progress" etc who are the most likely to believe
> >>that we now live in the only grown-up stage of history.
> >>
> >>Thirdly, how adequate is the dichotomy between "political radicals and
> >>political conservatives"? There is little "conservative" about people
> >>like George Bush and Tony Blair. The people who advise them? Come on!
> >>These are the people who make up history as they go along. The religious
> >>right? I don't think so, these people are prepared to bring on a
> >>holocaust in the hope that they will be saved.
> >>
> >>I accept that things are very different in different countries, and it's
> >>hard to get an overview. What do you think?
> >>
> >>Andy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 07:47 PM 23/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Just to note that Peirce said a LOT about semiosis, using his many
> >>>variations of the word (he liked Greek spelling), and it did make a big
> >>>change, but a long time after he passed on.
> >>>
> >>>As to history, I've always started with the idea that if we know how we
> >>>got where we are, we'd be rather likely to disagree with the choices (or
>
> >>>necessities, or ideologies) of the past that got us here (since they
> >>>don't tend to stay constant all that long), and so we'd both want to
> >>>change things and realize that there's no good reason (from our point of
>
> >>>view today), why they had to turn out the way they now are.
> >>>
> >>>This historical subversiveness contrasts with a more dominant, often
> >>>called "Whiggish", view of history, which tends, like old-fashioned
> >>>apologist social functionalism, to claim that the way things are is the
> >>>way they have to be, and that history teaches us the lessons we learned
> >>>about why this is so. This is a variant of progressionist evolutionary
> >>>theory, and the 19th century view, still quite alive if not among many
> >>>evolutionary biologists, that all of evolution and all of history is one
>
> >>>grand upward march to ... ME! Here we sit, at the crown of creation,
> >>>in, if not the best of all possible worlds, at least a world that is as
> >>>it is because by and large that's how it has to be. To which I say, most
>
> >>>heartily ... bullshit!
> >>>
> >>>More kindly, these different perspectives on history (and their is a
> >>>LITTLE truth in Whiggism ... a very little) are central to the divide
> >>>between political radicals and political conservatives, left and right,
> >>>which may change its colors and fashions, and programs, but has remained
>
> >>>remarkably constant for an awfully long time. And it behooves us on the
> >>>one side, I think, to have some understanding and appreciation for WHY
> >>>some people are on the other side.
> >>>
> >>>We tend most often to say that they just follow their interests, even
> >>>unconsciously, and no doubt in the large and the long term that's true
> >>>enough (e.g. statistically, or ala Bourdieu's neo-Durkheimian survey
> >>>research). But it's a mistake I think, and far too dangerously easy, to
> >>>leave it at that. We need much deeper and better accounts of why
> >>>conservatives believe the crazy things they do! because to them they are
>
> >>>not crazy, but follow from a long tradition of well-developed arguments
> >>>and what appears to them to be mountains of evidence.
> >>>
> >>>Conservatives attract many voters with their arguments, including many
> >>>whose objective interests should not dispose them that way.
> >>>
> >>>A key reason why CHAT needs to re-invigorate its emphasis on the
> >>>historical is just because we are contending against another view of
> >>>history, one that is dangerous to everything we are working for, and
> >>>which needs to be faced with a vigorous and well-developed alternative
> >>>view ... hopefully one that can prove its worth with contributions to
> >>>practical problem solving and making the world others would just accept,
>
> >>>different and better for more of us.
> >>>
> >>>JAY.
> >>>
> >>>At 08:51 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
> >>>>This is one of the issues I find really interesting in action research
> >>>>- how do you understand this redefintion. You change the understanding
>
> >>>>of the relationship between espoused theory and theory in use (I'm
> >>>>using Argyris' terminology here) through discussion and change in the
> >>>>way individuals talk about their projects (is it an attempt to come to
> >>>>a better match between theory in use and the way we talk about what we
> >>>>do) - and I guess in the best of all possible worlds this will loop
> >>>>back and change the way we talk about activity - so espoused theory
> >>>>becomes closer to theory in use. But when this change occurs, is it a
> >>>>move from objectification and basis in history (and how the
> >>>>organization was developed through history) to a more process oriented
> >>>>overall understanding of activity. For those who believe the Peirce
> >>>>made a qualitative change when he introduced the concept of semiosis
> >>>>(and let's face it, it wasn't the most overwhelming introduction, maybe
>
> >>>>he only used the word a few times) - is it a movement towards a more
> >>>>Pragmaticist based semiosis?
> >>>>
> >>>>Do we need to recognize history in an attempt to understand the problem
>
> >>>>better. Jay makes a great point, why do we have forty minute periods,
> >>>>why do we have nine month school schedules? It is because of history,
> >>>>and we sort of know that history, or interpretations of that history -
> >>>>but then how does it help us get closer to solving our problem. And if
>
> >>>>we give primacy to history, doesn't this open the door to the argument
> >>>>that the reason we do it this way is because of our history, and our
> >>>>history got us here, so our history should play an important part in
> >>>>our problem solving?
> >>>>
> >>>>Just some questions on a snowy Monday morning.
> >>>>
> >>>>Michael
> >>>>
> >>>>________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Jay Lemke
> >>>>Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 2:40 PM
> >>>>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>Subject: RE: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to SCHAT
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Action Research is about solving immediate problems, but one of its
> >>>>strategies is to get people talking about what those problems really
> >>>>are. In the course of which they often re-define the key problems as
> >>>>being larger than their immediate symptoms. When you then start to
> >>>>collaboratively investigate these bigger issues, you almost always
> >>>>find that history has played a role in getting us into the mess we're
> >>>>in. And that understanding how to get out of it often depends on
> >>>>figuring out a way around the path that historically got us where we
>are.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why are school classes only 40 minutes long? why are students
> >>>>segregated by age in schools? why don't teacher-student relationships
> >>>>in schools last more than a few months to less than one year? why are
> >>>>curriculum subjects separated? why is curriculum content dictated to
> >>>>be uniform? why do we use pencil-and-paper testing? why don't
> >>>>students get to learn from non-teacher mentors? why can't I take my
> >>>>students on a field trip outside the school? why can't they learn by
> >>>>participating/observing in other institutions?
> >>>>
> >>>>Why can't we talk about the topics we're really interested in? why
> >>>>can't we spend more than 2 weeks on this? why can't I learn basic
> >>>>biology over 2 years instead of one? why can't we talk about human
> >>>>sexuality? or famous gay figures in history? why can't we learn about
> >>>>law, religion, economics, politics? why can't we discuss the causes
> >>>>of violence in my neighborhood? Why don't I get paid for all the work
> >>>>the school requires me to do?
> >>>>
> >>>>The causes of most social headaches are institutional and structural,
> >>>>and the timescales across which we need to look to understand how
> >>>>they came to cause our headaches expand in historical time as we
> >>>>probe these networks of causes.
> >>>>
> >>>>Remember: give a man a fish, he eats today; teach him to fish, he
> >>>>eats tomorrow too? Action research, and the CHAT perspective, is
> >>>>about learning new ways to eat, about looking across longer relevant
> >>>>timescales for alternatives and solutions, not about eating the first
> >>>>fish to come our way (though if you're really hungry, why not?).
> >>>>
> >>>>JAY.
> >>>>
> >>>>PS. Short-term solutions can give us the breathing space to seek
> >>>>longer-term ones. But they can also exacerbate longer-term problems,
> >>>>or disguise them until they get even worse.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>At 01:30 PM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
> >>>> >Hello Michael,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >It seems to me the example you give about a headache has more to do
> >>>> >with a definition of the problem than it does to do with the role of
> >>>> >history. Do I define the problem as a need to remove the pain right
> >>>> >now, or do I define the problem as the need to make sure I don't get
> >>>> >headaches again. If I define the problem as the former then I take
> >>>> >an aspirin, and because the consequences of the action are that I no
> >>>> >longer have a headache, I am able to assert that the aspirin helped
> >>>> >in getting rid of the headache, and I have a relatively high level
> >>>> >of warranted assertability, and the aspirin becomes the first
> >>>> >instrument I reach for when wanting to solve a similar problem. If
> >>>> >I want to get rid of my headaches completely, I don't determine the
> >>>> >cause beforehand, because that is going to guide my problem solving
> >>>> >activity, but not necessarily in the right direction (let's say I
> >>>> >think that my dog's barking is causing my headaches - I get rid of
> >>>> >my dog, and that is my solution. But my headaches continue, and now
> >>>> >I am without a dog). Instead I approach the problem as an
> >>>> >experiment, setting up careful activities with measurable
> >>>> >consequences. This is not to say that ideas that have gone before
> >>>> >are not important, but only as part of an array of instruments I can
> >>>> >use in my experiment.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >But history often times plays a more important, defining role, that
> >>>> >has implications for our problem solving. History takes a dominant
> >>>> >position in our thinking and then we focus on maintenance of history
> >>>> >rather than the solving of the problem. This, it seems to me, is at
> >>>> >least part of the problem that action research is attempting to deal
> >>>> >with, at least in some of its incarnations. It is interesting
> >>>> >because Santayana makes the point very early that Americans have two
> >>>> >ways of dealing with issues - the way they say they are going to
> >>>> >deal with issues and the way that they actually do deal with
> >>>> >issues. Even back in in early part of the nineteenth century
> >>>> >American's were saying that they deal with issues through
> >>>> >religion/ideology such as being Catholics, or Protestants, or
> >>>> >Conservatives or such. But in actual problem solving Americans are
> >>>> >almost always Naturalists, dealing with problems as they occur
> >>>> >within the confines of nature. The difficulty is sometimes that
> >>>> >ideology overwhelms Naturalism, and it does so through history -
> >>>> >meaning it causes people to confuse who they say they are with what
> >>>> >they do. Here in the United States we are going through an
> >>>> >interesting political period in which individuals actually act
> >>>> >(vote) against their own best interests. The question is why. Is
> >>>> >it the manipulation of activity through the implications of
> >>>> >history? Again, it seems to me that this was one of the issues
> >>>> >Action Research is meant to solve (I have some ideas of why it might
> >>>> >not be that successful related to the dynamic nature of
> >>>> >information). This is why I wonder if the introduction of history
> >>>> >from the CHAT perspective is necessarily a positive for Action
> >>>> >Research. I don't have any answer for this, and I'm not drawing any
> >>>> >conclusions. Just something this discussion on Action Research has
> >>>> >spurred in my thinking.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Michael
> >>>> >
> >>>> >________________________________
> >>>> >
> >>>> >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
> >>>> >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 12:52 PM
> >>>> >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to
> >>>> >XMCAtheoreticaland methodological interests
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Hi Michael,
> >>>> >the problem with "immediate problems" is that these are concrete
> >>>> >expressions of issues at a very different level. Addressing the
> >>>> >immediate problem is like taking aspirin when you hurt somewhere.
> >>>> >What this solution to your immediate problem does not provide you
> >>>> >with is an understanding of the causes of headache, so that taking
> >>>> >aspirin is only patching some deeper problem---the causes, which are
> >>>> >of a very different nature, could be psychological, psychosomatic,
> >>>> >physiological, etc.
> >>>> >Historical analysis of the system as a whole is one way of getting at
> >>>> >the determinants---causes---of the immediate problems and how these
> >>>> >are mediated by the system as a whole. There are neat analyses by
> >>>> >Klaus Holzkamp or Ole Dreier that show why in counseling, for
> >>>> >example, you need to do more than treat immediate causes.
> >>>> >Cheers,
> >>>> >Michael
> >>>> >
> >>>> >On 21-Jan-07, at 9:15 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Had a chance to take a look at both Cathrene's chapters and the paper
> >>>> >by Anne Edwards. It is really interesting, good work. I am left
> >>>> >with an initial question. In both cases (and I might be wrong here),
> >>>> >what the authors were saying that CHAT (or SCRAT) have to offer
> >>>> >action research is a historical perspective, which, from what I am
> >>>> >reading, is not really part of Action research. The question this
> >>>> >brings to mind is, "Is this a good thing?" Do we naturally take
> >>>> >historical analysis as a good when we are attempting to deal with
> >>>> >immediate problems, and to sort of break the yoke the the larger
> >>>> >cultural foregrounding when attempting to deal with immediate
> >>>> >problems, or does it in some way "stack the deck" and force a more
> >>>> >culturally historical acceptable solution to the problem. It's a
> >>>> >problem I really struggle with. One thing that Cathrene's chapters
> >>>> >really did for me is make me recognize the relationship between
>micro-
> >>>> >genetic research and action research - because I suppose in the best
> >>>> >of all possible worlds micro-genetic research is action research (or
> >>>> >is it the other way around?)
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Michael
> >>>> >
> >>>> >________________________________
> >>>> >
> >>>> >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
> >>>> >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 11:32 AM
> >>>> >To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to XMCA
> >>>> >theoreticaland methodological interests
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Hi all, regarding the question of action research in schools and
> >>>> >CHAT---i.e., the points Anne Edwards article is about---we also had
> >>>> >written many years ago a conceptualization of this form of research
> >>>> >and some variants in an online article that some might find
> >>>> >interesting in this context:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Roth, Wolff-Michael, Lawless, Daniel V. & Tobin, Kenneth (2000,
> >>>> >December). {Coteaching | Cogenerative Dialoguing} as Praxis of
> >>>> >Dialectic Method [47 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
> >>>> >Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3). Available
> >>>> >at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00rothetal-
> >>>> >e.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year]
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Cheers, Michael
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >On 19-Jan-07, at 5:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Two papers have been posted and can now be found at the xmca website:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Catherene's chapters and the article by Anne Edwards.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >We will be posting an article from the most recent, exciting, issue
> >>>> >of MCA
> >>>> >shortly. More about
> >>>> >that later since there is slippage in the process.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >But the papers for discussion are there. Perhaps
> >>>> >Time for doing some research by taking action and finding them so you
> >>>> >can
> >>>> >comment, ask questions,
> >>>> >or provide an excuse not to do the dishes!!
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Have a nice weekend all.
> >>>> >mike
> >>>> >_______________________________________________
> >>>> >xmca mailing list
> >>>> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> >
> >>>> >_______________________________________________
> >>>> >xmca mailing list
> >>>> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> ><winmail.dat>
> >>>> >_______________________________________________
> >>>> >xmca mailing list
> >>>> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> >
> >>>> >_______________________________________________
> >>>> >xmca mailing list
> >>>> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >_______________________________________________
> >>>> >xmca mailing list
> >>>> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Jay Lemke
> >>>>Professor
> >>>>University of Michigan
> >>>>School of Education
> >>>>610 East University
> >>>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >>>>
> >>>>Tel. 734-763-9276
> >>>>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> >>>>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Jay Lemke
> >>>Professor
> >>>University of Michigan
> >>>School of Education
> >>>610 East University
> >>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >>>
> >>>Tel. 734-763-9276
> >>>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> >>>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
> >>Resisting Neoconservatism Today
> >>http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >Jay Lemke
> >Professor
> >University of Michigan
> >School of Education
> >610 East University
> >Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >
> >Tel. 734-763-9276
> >Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> >Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
>Resisting Neoconservatism Today
>http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
Resisting Neoconservatism Today
http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:34 PST