Andy, you wrote
And nor could capitalism operate for a day without the production of
healthy, sane workers by means of the loving care of collaborative
working classs families. I think Activity Theory should pay attention
to the systematic investigation of these different modes of
collaboration. Altogether we need a more differentiated approach.
The way Zygmunt is writing about the loving care of healthy sane
working families, I wonder if there is a danger of even this level of
intimacy and collaboration unravelling. Zygmunt is suggesting that
the valuing of "aesthetic interests" as basic points of reference and
orientation [attributes such as excitement, satisfaction or
pleasure] is devaluing moral commitments that support
continuous shared engagements. He refers to this unravelling as the
loss of the public sphere or in my terms a search for a "new
commons" [page 34 & 35]
Andy, I wonder if we as a culture(s) can continue to nurture and
sustain "the loving care of collaborative working families" within the
fragmentary disruptive social arrangements that Zygmunt is charting in
his concept of liquid modernity. He is suggesting the newer forms of
identity reforming within these fluid arrangements are of necessity
valuing aesthetic interests because we have lost our basic trust in
the more durable valuing of a shared commons. Zygmunt's
writings, because they are explicitly referencing and developing
"moral values" that attempt to construct "lasting networks of mutual
duties and obligations" is helping me to understand the depth of the
struggle that is required. His perspective requires our imaginations
to envision alternatives that are not fragmentary and PROVISIONAL.
Larry
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Larry, though there is a basis for the conception of "personality
types" and they have some role to play in the description of the
social changes taking place, I don't think they are the main
analytical tool. I can see two ways to go here. (1) the approach
of Regulation Theory, which points out that while capitalism is a
globally hegemonic mode of production, every country and period
solves a number of problems in different ways in respect to each
of a number of functional aspects of social life, e.g., the wages
system, the social welfare system, the state/political system, the
market system, the education system, and so on. In general, these
are not indifferent in their ramifications and need to be
theorised separately, and (2) the theorisation by means of
Activity Theory of the finite range of different relations. In my
opinion these relations can be grouped into purchase-and-sale,
command-and-obey and critical cooperation (or collaboration
properly so-called). No capitalist firm can operate, for example,
without using the ancient system of hierarchical direction. And
nor could capitalism operate for a day without the production of
healthy, sane workers by means of the loving care of collaborative
working classs families. I think Activity Theory should pay
attention to the systematic investigation of these different modes
of collaboration. Altogether we need a more differentiated approach.
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
Andy, if Zygmunt's analysis is accurate, then gathering
pessimism is a
reasonable response to our current arrangements where more and
more relationships are provisional as an adaptation to
capitalist rule. How
do we move beyond these liquid arrangements to form
personality "types"
which are expressive of yearnings for ONGOING connection and
shared
purpose. The answer cannot be merely epistemological or merely
practical/functional but MUST engage with alternative social
ETHICS which
constitute new personality "types".
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca