These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

Re: [xmca] Request for Panelist Names on CHAT History

From: Lois Holzman <lholzman who-is-at eastsideinstitute.org>
Date: Wed Sep 12 2007 - 07:21:09 PDT

Tony,
That's good to know. I haven't come across that although it makes sense in
terms of the use of authority you mention, which is certainly a strain we
experience. I'm curious about which fields the people you refer to work in.
It does indicate that we have some work to do being more inclusive.
Lois

> From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu>
> Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Request for Panelist Names on CHAT History
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Lois Holzman wrote:
>
>> I've always thought the lack of dogma, definition and exclusivity was a
>> strength of CHAT.
>> Lois
>>
> I agree, and I think that's how it looks to folks who might be considered
> CHAT afficianados. Interestingly, though, I have heard some people who are
> coming from outside the CHAT community characterize CHAT as a movement
> that looks, to them, comparatively dogmatic -- compared to the
> disciplinary traditions where they feel at home. I've heard remarks about
> preoccupation with LSV's work (and/or Marx, Hegel, etc.) as a kind of
> scripture, for example, such that people are concerned with properly
> interpreting LSV's writing, and using that as a kind of authority, in ways
> that seem to them unlike anything that happens in their own fields of
> research.
>
> To CHAT folk this no doubt seem like a completely unrecognizable
> characterization.
>
> What do you think?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Wed Sep 12 07:22 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT