Dear Andy,
That was very provocative! I empathise with the 'ethos' in your
biography biography – mine shares something somewhat but 'accidental'
intellectually. I spent many years amongst those that spent their
youth overcoming the Franco regime. Spent years 'mutually
influencing' in a very poor village marginalised for being 'united
left - IE' - this affects funds and projects, one aspect I could
believe could be identified as reflexivity in looking at this time
living there - that is developing a way of relating that embodies a
'concept' which enables a transformative qualitative difference in
form of living ( in this case 'measured' by incorporation of
ecological values and poetry/artistic creation (and consumption) by
and within the village – happened over 10 or 15 years ... for sure
'positive law' legislative changes take a long time. From the 'fight'
you epitomise to the everyday living difference sought. But am I
right to depict the story that way round - was it the intellectuals
who became activists and gave up all- or was it that without the
invitation of 'people of the countryside’ ( and in the country those
that showed me how to be neighbours most proximal to my house were in
fact 'illiterate' - yet they helped bring up my first son - who
still remembers the gestures and values.) would ‘reflexivity’ be realized.
Provocative because I've no idea what you mean by 'systems theory'
and I mention this in an earlier post :))) - I can only say I identify
in the acquisition of principles of intervention/ practice - I find
those of ‘CHAT – also a family of diversity- activity theory - but
the 'pattern' of acquisition is 'mutual influencing' ish as from my
reading oft Mike's last joint article was different ( other times
too). I guess the central concept is 'transformation'. so I don't
'get' objectification of 'social theory', I’m ‘out’ on what that
might be quite. it's dynamic open and that's the big problem - no?
losing 'dynamic thought' in objectification. Though who is assuming
that all are influenced by ‘social theory’ . I still visit my
neighbours who don’t read or write, I still am included by neighbours
from my hometown ( 1953 council estate) . I also still have relations
with some from my academic ‘tribe’ – how I got there was by
interview for an MSc– they had to go check that my qualifications did
actually ‘count’ to be able to join in J)).
I really liked David's recent post
"""that is, for understanding how the social becomes psychological,
for recognition, for identity, for the forging of something that can
reasonably called a free willed self, the mediating entity we want is
really the community.
On the face of it, there doesn't appear to be any historical period
where there was not a community of some kind. Except maybe our own." (
this expresses the otion of autopoiesis David - only Maturana's very
convoluted explication was we don't have 'access' to our own embodied
actuality - we are inherently 'observers' in a relational historically
forming domain which we structurally couple to- i.e influence /but not
causally either direction. A primary to this concept is life - not
evolution.
Except I turn to the question of 'will' which isn't artistic enough
for me a 'free loved self' ? or creative self? Phychology of art
seemed to me (only skimming) to be about aesthetic consumption - not
the sensual production of artistic gesture. Mediating - but not
'entity' because community is always flowing along, in an out, people
come and go and there is multiplicity of community.
Also David's earlier comment about the boundary of the word - where
I would pull in 'being in relation to gesture' ( always unspoken?).
Anyway I'm as 'peripheral'/ ambiguous / with and without recognition in written voice in the 'systems tribe' nearly as in this - so I like your expression of principle of 'not making matters worse' a lot.
BTW I didn't mean Ulrich Beck, risk is in his work and in ecology being objectified - the relation is to uncertainty what 'to do when there is no notion of 'risk' to hang on to. I made a reference to Ullrich and I'm not at all in the camp of cybernetics i don't think - but the special issue which hosts the paper for discussion has a review of a book on that by Tony (and I'll read that - he was discussing Freire before his illness)
it was Werner Ullrich - who I've not read either. I have a feeling this might be a question of 'responsibility to those less advantaged' and I nearly always find that difficult because the categorisation interpellates 'no change'.
BTW - I've lost the functionalism theme , leontiev - but have maybe
exposed 'anglo ' insufficiencies via biography:). I didn't used to
react to provocation half so 'profusely'..must have had some
'coaching' somewhere.....
Cheers Andy.