Andy (and others interested in projects/systems of activity/living
artifacts/etc.),
And I think Zygmunt Bauman (in Liquid Modernity), when speaking of
melting in late modernity of previously solid social forms of life,
puts a particularly sharp point on my question (and yours?):
"The solids whose turn has come to be thrown into the melting pot and
which are in the process of being melted at the present time, the time of
fluid modernity, are the bonds which interlock individual choices in
collective projects and actions - the patterns of communication and
co-ordination between individually conducted life policies on the one
hand and political actions of human collectivities on the other." (p. 6).
This suggests that it will be even harder today to try to find bonds
that "interlock individual choices in collective projects and
actions." This takes it a step farther back from the projects to: How
can we re-form these bonds?
Or maybe we need a new way of conceiving of the project and of
"projects" altogether? Fluid and ephemeral projects that flow about,
mix with, seep into, and spread out?
How to do this?
-greg
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Yes, Greg, the notion of Recognition demonstrated in Hegel's
Philosophy of Right I fully embrace, particularly because it is
realised through a concept of mediation, rather than as an
alternative to mediation, as it is found in some modern writing.
And yes, I see this idea as to be realised through the idea of the
formation of collaborative projects, rather than "groups" and
associations.
Andy
Greg Thompson wrote:
As for the centrifugal forces that hold these entities
together (whether
you call them "systems of activity" or "projects"), I want to
humbly add
the importance of the Hegelian notion of "recognition." It
seems to me that
one of the critical functions of these entities is to provide
recognition
for individuals - to consummate them (to use Bakhtin's
language). With the
liquidity of identity that Ivan speaks of in modernity, it is
these
entities that provide for the moments of recognition that hold
together our
own selves as identities that can act agentively. And this is
important.
In Philosophy of Right, Hegel introduces the idea and
importance of
"corporations." These serve important functions of providing
recognition (a
give and take between individual and group), but also
practical matters
like distribution of resources and the development of individual's
abilities. Isn't this quite similar to what is behind the
ideas being
discussed here? Andy?
Here is a quote from Hegel's Lectures on Philosophy of Right
that speaks to
the obligations of wealthy in a "corporation" (really more of
a "trade
union" or something like that, but def. not the "corporation"
that we speak
of today):
“But in the corporation the individual has his true
consciousness and here
he has a genuine noble opportunity to acquire honor. In the
corporation the
corruption of wealth is set aside…. In the corporation wealth
is no longer
an end in itself. He has duties in this circle…. Here he
becomes something
through the way he applies his wealth for the sake of his
cooperative
association.”
H has much more to say about the importance of recognition for
the poor as
well due to their obligations to the corporation (whether or
not this is
built into the collaboration between TCLC and UCSD is a
difficult thing to
address. I think the families at TCLC have obligations to TCLC
but their
obligations and gift-giving to UCSD are not clear - this
despite Mike's
insistence upon them to the UCSD audience! The apparent (to most)
one-sidedness of this kind of gift-giving creates a one sided
moment of
recognition where UCSD always has the upper hand (see M. Mauss
on "no free
gifts").
All of this speaks to an important issue in the U.S., namely
the Grand
Canyon that exists between rich and poor. The critical
question in the U.S.
is: where will such "corporations" come from? Where can the
rich and poor
cooperatively come together in a land that is literally
structured by
income - where how much you make determines where you live?
Communities
here are de facto segregated by income. (yes, there are some
exceptions to
this rule).
I think the TCLC partnership provides a means for this kind of
(temporary)
creation of community (corporation) that crosses income lines.
Unfortunately, most of what makes up the "corporation", i.e., the
undergrads, is rather fleeting. Twice a week for 10 weeks in
and out. And
folks at LCHC are clearly concerned about the value of this
for the TCLC
kids. It is sometimes hard not to think that the undergrads
get more out of
those 10 weeks than the TCLC kids do. But, even if this is the
case, it is
eye opening for those often privileged undergrads. And it is
hard to
imagine anywhere in the U.S. where the building of cross-income
corporations is being done any better (Occupy Wall Street has
very mixed
results in this regard, For a critique of the middle-class
white elitism of
OWS, see: http://www.voxunion.com/?p=4592).
-greg
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Ivan Rosero <irosero@ucsd.edu
<mailto:irosero@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
I can see the reason for the excitement, and as I've come
of age at LCHC
over the last few years, it is this issue --what to call,
how to frame
analytically and explore methodologically, and what
theoretical
characterization to give these "meso zones"-- that has
been the most
salient issue for me.
If it is true that identity is liquid, and we move from
one identity
instantiation to another, then there must be accompanying
socio-material
formations within which such identities can be had while being
simultaneously porous and loose enough to allow relatively
unproblematic
entry/exit. No doubt that there are longer-lived
structuring structures
within which, and relative to which, these meso-scale
formations come to
life, but those are not the proximal site of interest
here. Further, those
meso-scale formations that result from purposeful (and
vulnerable) coming
together without any guarantee of anything, are special
indeed.
I fear the abstract here, but I will say at least that
these things, for
me, are a kind of prolepsis engine, formations through
which different
possibilities of how future arrangements might be
organized are tried out
in vivo, with all the complexities of the real thing
because, well, they
are the real thing!
The lack of clear-cut language is not surprising, because
at the moment the
pull inward that participants undergo around these
collaborative
partnerships, in my experience, surfaces as an ethical
aesthetic which does
not yet enjoy the clarity of a full blown political
program of action.
There might even be more than a little fatigue with the
latter, and more
of a desire to explore different ways of being together
that do not require
(and may die as soon as these are reached) clear
categories and conceptual
pronouncements.
ivan
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Eugene Matusov has an article in Outlines on the topic
of the
sustainability of these projects:
http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.**
dk/index.php/outlines/article/**view/2662<
http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/view/2662>where
he says: "The success of our after-school partnership
between a
community center and our university's School of
Education does not
necessarily require ... a common vision between
partners or even
compatible
visions." I would welcome comments on this view.
Also, what is the story with the Laboratory School at
UCLA?
Andy
Andy Blunden wrote:
By "crisis," Ivan, I had in mind just the kind of
situation you describe
in southern San Diego.
As I reported to Mike at the time, when I read
"Cultural Psychology" a
few years ago, I got really excited, not so much
because of the specific
teaching and learning methods that were going to
be used, but rather
that -
like the climax of a detective novel - Mike had
identified the culprit,
the
research problem that lay at the heart of problems
of poverty and
illiteracy in developed countries - /how is it
possible to sustain a
project/? what characterises a /sustainable
project/? This revelation
was
crucial in my coming to the conclusion that the
molar unit of analysis
for
CHAT had to be the /collaborative project/, athe
conclusion which I
drew in
my book published earlier this year, "An
Interdisciplinary Theory of
Activity."
This did not mean of course that I had the answer
- Heavens! a concrete
answer to teh question of what sustains a
collaborative project is the
answer to all the problems of modernity. It is a
clear definition, in my
view, of the problem, the "germ cell" for an
understanding of modern
social
life. It is what really needs to be studied.
"Collaborative project" is not just a special
topic or one choice for
making interventions, because (1) "Project," in my
view, is a much
better
way of concieving of the unit of social life than
"system of activity."
In
particular, the relation between the so-called
object and "system." For
a
project, the aim is not something separate which
gets added to the
system
of activity, but is /immanent in the project
itself/. It is emergent.
It is
"realised." (2) "Collaboration" is the
fundamental, normative
relationship
between people of modern life. So it is an
adequate definition of what
we
need to be studying when we do research into human
life. We need to
understand collaboration. But fairly few CHAT
researchers (let alone
anyone
else) make this explicit and upfront.
Collaboration is only possible if
there is a project to collaborate on and all
projects are collaborative.
Concepts originate as the immanent realised aims
of projects. So
collaborative projects form the units of our
psychic life just as they
are
the units of our social life. So as a unit of
/analysis/, collaborative
projects reflect collaborative projects as the
*real* unit of social
life.
So you can understand how excited I was to read
your article in /Theory
&
Psychology/!
Andy
Ivan Rosero wrote:
Well, bankruptcies can still make more than a
few very rich, so the
"we"
and "our" in this building of habitable
imaginaries presupposes a prior
set
of other imaginaries through to come together
anew, and perhaps
differently, even if we think we know each
other --or, in other words,
to
give each other space to be other things, to
be strangers in creative
ways
in order to have any hope of reinventing and
in*forming what we do in
such
a way to make it more hospitable.
As it happens, one tendril that continues to
pass through Town and
Country,
but is now much more active elsewhere in
southeast San Diego, is a
strong
connection to the food system change movement,
which another graduate
student at LCHC is exploring after having
dwelt for a while at T&C.
Here
is one of its core members, Diane Moss (quoted in
http://www.voiceofsandiego.**org/people/q_and_a/article_**
cde3547e-f6b1-11e0-bfba-**001cc4c03286.html<
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/people/q_and_a/article_cde3547e-f6b1-11e0-bfba-001cc4c03286.html
)
who we know personally, answering a few
questions in a way that
concretizes
the shape of a few new imaginaries that we
here at LCHC have been drawn
into:
*What happened when you came back from that
workshop in 2008?*
I started seeing empty lots and seeing they
could be used for other
purposes. I saw that we probably had the
ability to grow our own food.
I bet on any block in southeastern San Diego,
somebody's growing
something
in their backyard: collard greens, corn. We
started looking at how we
could
take that talent and start having
conversations about collective
growing
or
community gardens. Even though we didn't use
the term "food desert" at
that
time, we talked about why we didn't have the
same markets everyone else
has.
*Why didn't you like "food desert"?*
I thought desert meant nothing — that you had
nothing to build on. I
said,
well, we've got people who grow things. We're
not starting from
scratch.
But I embraced it when I became familiar with
another definition: that
there are more fast food outlets than fresh
food outlets.
*You hadn't thought about access to good food
in this community as a
problem before 2008?*
Southeastern San Diego always gets tagged as a
community with lots of
problems. So here was another negative tag
people put on this
community.
I
saw that we didn't have the resources we
needed, but I didn't think of
it
in terms of a food desert.
*What have been the biggest challenges to
getting people involved?*
People say yes, we should have gardens. But
it's difficult for people
to
change their habits.
*How do you change habits?*
It takes time. Neighbors talking to neighbors.
People taking a chance
to
do
something different.
-------
LCHC has been fortunate beyond any expectation
to have entered into
this
new collaboration and the mesh of actors it
pulls together.
Ivan
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Larry Purss
<lpscholar2@gmail.com
<mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>>
wrote:
My response to this thread is an extension
of the notion of
"ambivalence"
at the heart and soul of all social
imaginaries.
It was mentioned that the motivating force
to "keep going" without
clarity
of intention or goals is the "felt sense"
of social BANKRUPTCY
[economic
metaphor] in the current social imaginary.
Zygmunt Bauman uses the
very
extreme metaphor of "waste" in his 2004
book to stir the ambivalence
at
the
center of our current social imaginary.
Ingold's article I recently
posted
captured the 12 century social imaginary
where walking, texts,
architecture, discourse, and contemplation
were all manifestations of
a
single ontology. All these objects
expressed a social imaginary that
did
not have some of the object "representing"
the "underlying" social
imaginary but rather were ALL immanebt
manifestations of the SAME
social
imaginary.
Modernity [the tension between
enlightenment and romanitic
hermeneutical
ideas/ideals] also may have an
encompassing social imaginary that has
a
fundamental rupture [ambivalence] in the
notion of "representation" as
expressing some "underlying" reality
[realization] when in actuality the modern
walks, texts, architecture,
discourses and contemplations are
expressions of a monolithic social
imaginary.
Bauman's analysis of modernity [he is an
"exile" from the holocaust]
has
situated ambivalence at the heart of ALL
social imaginaries when
realized
express "order" or "structure" which
requires LIMITING formations.
This is
the core idea of sociology. Baumans
emancipatory vision for
sociological
imagination [in which he generates
multiple metaphors] is to explicate
the
ambivalence at the heart of modernity
leading to social bankruptcy. It
is
the reality of this ambivalence in our
current modern social imaginary
where Bauman locates hope and the
possibility for emancipation from
the
"waste lands".
Bauman purposely is exploring the power of
the metaphor of "waste" to
grasp
the desolation of our current
arrangements. For Bauman the metaphor of
"waste" as the by-product of our
"productions" in our "garden
contexts"
[another metaphor which the Nazi's used to
create a social imaginary
where
Jews were "weeds" in the garden] is
grasping the fundamental
ambivalence
at the heart of our social bankruptcy.
For Bauman and many others who are
searching for a new orientation in
our
globalized planetary social imaginary the
metaphor of "the suffering
stranger" travelling in the waste lands is
the moral calling
requiring a
response as a growing "response-ability"
as a "skill" developing
within
a
"new commons".
We need new "practises" and new "texts"
and also new discourses and
new
forms of contemplation. However, I'm
wondering how central to
transcending
our current social imaginary, which is now
a wasteland, are new forms
of
architecture which express the yearning to
respond to the suffering
stranger.
In summary, the larger contexts being
explored may be
cultural-semiotic
imaginaries that must become realized
within a new commons which must
be
in*formed to "hold" the suffering stranger
in our midst [difference
and
alterity and weeds and waste as the
ambivalence at the heart of the
modern
vision of the garden]
Accountability, measurement, statistics,
as our current social
imaginary of
cultural and social "order" at its heart
has the cavity of the
suffering
stranger that is now calling for a
response and a new cultural and
social
order in a new commons which must be
in*formed as our response-ability
to
the call of the other.
Bauman's notion of "waste" and "waste
lands" as by-products of our
globalized social imaginary calls for an
alternative social imaginary
that
exists in the ambivalence at the heart of
our current world order.
Larry
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Ivan
Rosero <irosero@ucsd.edu
<mailto:irosero@ucsd.edu>>
wrote:
Arturo, two things coincide for me in
reading your email: 1) I've
been
working for the last 4 years in the
same collaboration that
Lecusay,Downing-Wilson,Cole have
written about, and 2) I too share
the
following concern:
----
CHAT keeps operating with a process
and methodological
ontology whereby the individual and
the social are inseparable but
does not provide a clear cut language
of description of how the
social
structure shapes activity or, to put
it in Seeger's terms, how power
shapes discourse (and consciousness
and identy).
----
As the authors have described, the
community setting in which this
latest
of LCHC's projects has unfolded does
not permit even the relatively
loose
structures that were the hallmarks of
previous 5D projects --this is
where
the ad-hoc stumbling upon interesting
things to do together is such
an
important component of the dual sense
of "appropriation". In the
social
space that has been created between
LCHC and Town and Country there
exists
(as I have experienced it over the
last four years) an enduring
liminality
that refuses to come to closure
--neither LCHC participants,
including
grad
students, staff, and undergraduate
students, nor T&C participants
have
arrived at any definite position vis a
vis what we are doing
together.
The
kids get older, new ones arrive, some
teens have left, club and group
structures change, entire families
move out. UCSD's side of the
story
is
more predictable in the institutional
sense of allowing year-on-year
planning of classes and recruitment of
students, as well as, of
course,
the
staying power of UCSD as a much longer
running process than the
collaboration itself. But this can
only explain the brute sense of
our
continued presence, one which would be
impossible to impose in any
case,
so
that we still have to try and explain
the delicate sense of our
continued
presence --what is happening in the
space of this
cross-cultural/cross-**institutional
intersection that keeps pulling
together
(in a delicate way) such a
heterogenous amalgam of participants --a
constant churn of undergraduate
buddies, a more stable set of grad
students, a constant, but slowly
changing, stream of kids, Ms. V.,
and
the
few community parents that regularly
lend a hand?
You and Andy have said that there must
be some kind of crisis, and
this
may
be so, but if this is what is allowing
the participants to come
together
anew, it is not the kind of crisis
that can be compared to, say,
Occupy
Wall Street, or Greece, or the Arab
Spring. It might be that I lack
the
requisite social imagination, but the
way I see it, what is special
about
this collaboration is that it holds
together without disclosing to
its
participants directly how this is
happening. We have been at it for
four
years, and it isn't obvious to me why,
as a T&C elder says, we "keep
on
keeping on". This is especially true
in light of severe, and
recurrent,
frustrations on every side. For
example, in the absence of UCSD
students,
homework does not get done nearly as
regularly as when they are there
--this creates a huge problem for Ms.
V, who must still try to
satisfy
this
community need in our absence.
Sometimes we at LCHC find ourselves
at
odds
with local customs and decisions, to
which we nevertheless submit in
order
to keep on keeping on. But where are
we keeping on to? (Especially
without access to clear-cut language
with which to explain any of
this!)
So, these kinds of open-ended
interactional spaces elicit from their
participants a degree of patience that
is rarely seen anywhere --more
or
less equally distributed! Southeast
San Diego, where T&C is located,
is
not unique in all the ways that its
inhabitants are systematically
marginalized, and it is a fact that
local community organizers (I've
been
at some of their meetings) look on
UCSD and charitable institutions
with
very suspicious eyes. In the face of
these realities, mutual
appropriation
is one factor, but not a wholly
explanatory one for the loose
holding-together that is going on here.
Whatever the answers are, it is
impossible for me to conceive of a
satisfying explanation that does not
include affective-imaginative
dimensions. The way I see it, the
mystery here is not how
power/structure
shapes discourse/activity, it is why
this collaboration holds in the
face
of what would normally be
insurmountable difficulties. Good
will and
patience all around? Maybe, but this
only pushes the question deeper
into
the affective-imaginative life of this
collaboration.
Ivan
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Andy
Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
wrote:
Continuing my sharing of the
current edition of Theory & Psyhology,
attached are scans of Deborah
Downing-Wilson, Robert Lecusay and
Mike
Cole's paper (which I have been so
excited about) and the first 16
pages
of
Yrjo Engestrom's paper (I have
omitted the case study) which is a
concise
synopsis of his current views on
activity and concepts.
Andy
Andy Blunden wrote:
That's a very interesting
series of points, Arturo!
Could I just ask you to
elaborate a little on what you
meant by
"the
unconscious in sign-making"
and "the problem of fetishism
of the
sign."
I guess that you are right that in
almost any social context (the US
included I suspect), the kind
of project that Mike writes
about can
only be
implemented by surruptitiously
moving the goal posts set by the
recognised
authorities, by a kind of
subversion, making use of openings
created
by
manifest social crisis.
As I'm sure you know, I am in
agreement with your critique
of the
failure
to satisfactorily "marry"
psychological concepts with
sociological
concepts, in CHAT or anywhere
else for that matter. But
doesn't the
kind of
project Mike is talking about,
where goals are immanent in the
project
itself, and the project is
thoroughly and explicitly
collaborative,
go
some
way to addressing this problem?
Andy
Arturo Escandon wrote:
Just wanted to point out
that there are places
where you cannot
even
think of implementing a
simple plain standard
design experiment,
let
alone an ad-hoc
intervention because
educational settings and
institutions are thought
to be mere knowledge
reproduction-distribution
centers. Research is the
job of the
Ministry
of Education. "Joint activity"? What
on Earth is that in Japan except
the illusion of freedom
framed under top-down
cosmological
structure.
I am afraid that most of
the cases depicted in the
journal are a
reproduction of the
cultural conditions
existing in few settings,
in
few communities, in a
handful of countries. Am I
able to implement
an
intervention or mutual
appropriation in the
Japanese educational
context? No. Am I able to
do it in "local
communities", yes, but
under
considerable restrictions. However, I
am guessing that the most
effective interventions in
local communities spring
from social
crisis, not from planned
activity, that is, some
sort of
punctuated
equilibrium in which the
community changes or perish.
I am very curious about
(1) how the structural
constraints and
affordances of
organisations themselves
shape those mutual
appropriations and how we
can account for them; (2)
how the
mediating
means themselves are
unequally distributed
(knowledge
differential):
in order to bridge the
differences established by
the lack of a
common
repertoire of meanings you have to
engage in meaning making, creating
in fact a new
differential; (3) the
unconscious in sign-making or
using activity.
Educational activity
brings consciousness at the
expense of bringing
unconsciousness as well. I
have not read a
single
decisive work addressing
the problem of fetishism
of the sign, on
which a theory of the
uncosciousness could be
integrated into
CHAT,
except for works that deal
with the problem of "the
ideal".
Seeger asks the right
questions but I believe
there is much more
out
there about ways of
marriaging psychology and
sociology to give a
better account of agency.
At the end, the issues
raised by Sawyer
are
still relevant: CHAT keeps
operating with a process and
methodological
ontology whereby the individual and
the social are inseparable but
does not provide a clear
cut language of
description of how the
social
structure shapes activity or, to put
it in Seeger's terms, how power
shapes discourse (and
consciousness and identy).
Best
Arturo
On 10 November 2011 23:41,
Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
wrote:
The current edition of
Theory & Psychology
looks very special. I
admit I
have at this stage only actually
read the article by Mike Cole,
Robert
Lecusay and Deborah Downing-Wilson,
but it is a special issue on
CHAT
and
interventionist
methodology, with
articles by a number
of people
from
Yrjo
Engestrom's CRADLE and
also Falk Seeger, who
is guest editing the
Special
Issue of MCA on Emotions.
Mike's article
elaborates on what the
participants call a
"mutual
appropriation"
approach to developing
theory and practice.
Instead
of
implementing a project design and then
modifying it in the light of
the
reseacher's experience, the
researchers go in to a local community
with
very
open ended ideas about
how and what they want
to achieve, and
engage
with
their community
partner, learn about
their (the partner's)
project,
offer
assistance and
resources and share
knowledge and
objectives and
....
mutually appropriate.
The article describes
the results of a
specific
project which is an exemplar of
"mutual appropriation" which has
grown
out
of the 5thD
after-school programs
which LCHC began in
the 1980s.
The article is
actually very moving.
I personally think
that this
kind
of
work is tackling the
main problem in front
of us
cultural-historical
cultural psychology
people today. If you
don't subscribe to
Theory
&
Psychology, I don't
know how you can get
to read the paper. Maybe
someone
has a solution there.
But it is a must read.
I will read the
remaining
articles in the special issue, but
this is a real high.
Andy
--
------------------------------****----------------------------**--**------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/****toc/hmca20/18/1
<http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1>
<
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
Home Page:
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.****aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.****aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
<
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
______________________________****____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/****listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca>
<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
--
------------------------------****----------------------------**--**
------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/****toc/hmca20/18/1<
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1>
<
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
Home Page:
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.****aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.****aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
<
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
>
______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
--
------------------------------**------------------------------**
------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto: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