Re: [xmca] schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids

[Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>]

I'll skip over the thick questions of language, representation, and
epistemology, or of the "fantastic" nature of all things social (which you
didn't exactly address in your response). Instead, I'll just cut to the
chase.

Taking Willis' book as an example (and he is more or less repeating the
argument of Bourdieu and of Marx - so you don't really need to be familiar
with the book to know the argument - the working class man (sic!) has false
consciousness about the conditions of his existence and the enlightened
intellectual will lead him to the light.

In Willis' case, he speaks of the lads inability to see the "real" nature
of their existence and their reproduction of social class, but have only
partial "penetrations" into that reality. It is Willis who apparently has
the necessary ability to "penetrate" that reality (and I should add that I
am a huge fan of this book - it remains one of the best out there on the
reproduction of class).

All I'm saying is that it is worth acknowledging the hard empirical,
theoretical, (statistical?), inductive and deductive knowledge that these
working class kids have. But it is knowledge FOR a particular task of
"getting by" (just like the enlightened intellectual's knowledge is good
for addressing questions on a larger scale). The lads' ability to "have a
laff" is important and complex kind of knowledge. It speaks to a hard
reality that exists just as much as something like "class" exists (these
are the kinds of fantasies that I was pointing to in my last email, but
I'll let that go and assume for the purposes of this email they are real).
The privileging of one over the other seems to me to be rather unfortunate
(some folks call this "symbolic violence" - I'm not disposed to go that
far).

This is an old conversation so I don't suspect that I'll get anywhere with
it here. But it has been good to think through it with you.

Best,
greg


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 13 November 2011 00:40, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What is there in social life that we can talk about that is not
> "fantasy"?
> >
>
> Knowledge.  Empirical, theoretical, statistical, inductive and deductive...
>
>
> >
> > And, connecting to the other thread, is "alienation" fantasy? (maybe more
> > of a phantasmagoria? (to play with Marx's camera obscura metaphor a
> bit)).
> >
>
> I'd say no.  Though we can see how one can encourage the other.
>
>
> >
> > -greg
> > p.s. for those interested in what I'm after here, I'm trying to cut a
> path
> > between Marx's humanism and Max Stirner's nihilism - to recognize the
> > importance of "fantasy" (something that seems to have no place in Marx's
> > thinking) without falling into a subjective idealism (where Stirner ends
> > up). Walking a razor's edge?
> >
>
> I'd say it was the contents of the thinking that make it fantasy.  The
> psychological process, tempered with a willingness to check/try out ones
> ideas, can be fruitful and is not necessarily something I'd classify as
> fantasy.
>
> Huw
>
>
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On 12 November 2011 20:48, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huw,
> > > >
> > > > I get the basic idea of where you are coming from with this. I'm
> > familiar
> > > > with Paul Willis' use of the unfortunate term "penetrations" in his
> > book
> > > > Learning to Labo(u)r. It is quite similar to Bourdieu's notion of
> being
> > > > able to see through ideology and into the "real" relations between
> > things
> > > > (my scare quotes around real). I see both Willis and Bourdieu as
> > > developing
> > > > Marxist ideas.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't recall coming across the phrase in literature, so be assured I
> > > wasn't using it as term.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Having said that, I still have some concerns (aside from the
> > unfortunate
> > > > term "penetrations"). My concern is that there is a posited "real"
> that
> > > the
> > > > critical critic has available to them that is not available to others
> > > > (maybe we would say that he has the intellectual "equipment" to
> > > "penetrate"
> > > > reality). I don't have a problem with the idea that the critical
> critic
> > > has
> > > > a different and useful perspective on things, I just don't agree that
> > we
> > > > should speak of this in terms of a better grasp of reality.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I would say that the critical critic has a better
> perspective
> > > FOR
> > > > some particular ends. But I'm not convinced that it is necessarily
> > > because
> > > > their perspective is "more real" or closer to reality. It depends on
> > what
> > > > reality, and what for.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Perspectives is 'more real'" reads like a typological error to me.
>  The
> > > means of representing perspectives are inherently real, by virtue of
> > their
> > > being represented.  It is the truthfulness of the existence of the
> > > realities they represent which is the point.   The representation of a
> > > fantasy is very real, but the thing pointed to by this representation
> is
> > > not, it is questionable, and this questioning entails the logic of
> > > truthfulness.  Likewise the 'very real effect' of a fantasy does not
> > refer
> > > to the reality of the thing pointed to by the fantasy, it refers to the
> > > real effect of a real representation.
> > >
> > > Huw
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Elsewhere Bourdieu notes that misrecognition ("misknowing" - i.e.,
> > > > meconnaissance) is absolutely essential to social life.
> Misrecognition
> > is
> > > > at the heart of meaning - without it we encounter a meaningless,
> > lifeless
> > > > world. So I'd suggest that it is better to be honest about our
> > > shortcomings
> > > > when it comes to reality. Better to ask what a given way of "seeing"
> is
> > > > good for. What does it allow us to see and do?
> > > >
> > > > -greg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Huw Lloyd <
> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 27 October 2011 22:14, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 October 2011 20:56, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 27 October 2011 20:47, Greg Thompson <
> > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Huw,
> > > > > >>> Is reality really something to be "penetrated."
> > > > > >>> -greg
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If you wish to get from one side of a city to another, there are
> > > > finite
> > > > > >> ways of doing so using conventional transport.  If you wish to
> > > > > articulate
> > > > > >> that intention in terms of a particular route, you will have to
> > > > mentally
> > > > > >> penetrate the fog of obstacles from A to B prior to an accurate
> > > > > >> articulation.  Does 'penetrating to reality' sound better?
> > >  Hopefully
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> gist is clear.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > ... but that also the intention successfully acted upon is a
> change
> > > and
> > > > > > thereby a form of penetrating reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I thought this loose-end might be helpful.  Bourdieu, in
> > 'Distinction'
> > > > > p387, expressed this aspect:
> > > > >
> > > > > "What the relation to 'mass' (and, a fortiori, 'elite') cultural
> > > products
> > > > > reproduces, reactivates and reinforces is not the monotony of the
> > > > > production line or office but social relation which underlies
> > > > working-class
> > > > > experience of the world, whereby his labour and the product of his
> > > > labour,
> > > > > opus proprium, present themselves to the worker as opus alienum,
> > > > > 'alienated' labour.
> > > > >
> > > > > i.e. the difference between a participatory, intentionally
> > influential
> > > > > relation and a passive one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Huw
> > > > > __________________________________________
> > > > > _____
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > > Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
> > > > Department of Communication
> > > > University of California, San Diego
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
> > Department of Communication
> > University of California, San Diego
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca