Folks,
I have been trying to unpack the discussion on positive critical theory and
there are several questions that come to mind. First, Jim seems to relate
to negative critical theory two things 1) Negative theory as a description of
power distribution 2) Social acceptance of a negative critical theory.
The latter seems analogous to the methodology of physical science, as
described by Popper, in which experiment is used to 'disprove' theory.
Lakatos describes similar processes of mathematical research programmes in
which counterexamples provide a key role in the rejection and hence
reformulation of hypotheses. The point being that the imaginative creation
of hypotheses and theories are not truth, but an attempt at making sense of
nature - alternative hypotheses and theories can always be generated that
describe the same 'data' as history has indicated, such as the bohr or
heisenberg models of the atom or relatedly the description of the electron as
either a particle or wave. The latter still defies a singular description
that accurately predicts the behavior of the electron. So the best we can do
is not to find the truth, but reject alternatives. Is physical science a
negative critical theory?
What sense I make of Chucks posting is a somewhat separate issue of how
people collaborate around a research enterprise, although the two seemed
linked through participants ideology of what it is they should be doing.
Suspicion or caution of others, say for example that I think Mike has a
hidden agenda in the formulation of CP (which I don't), certainly plays a
role, in my example I must try to separate Mike's agenda from my belief that
CP can provide a viable theoretical framework for my own research (which I
do). Granted, there may well be hidden agenda that I may and should be
suspicious of, but nevertheless, my belief, having been raised in the
physical science tradition, is that it necessary for ideation to be
delineated from motive and held up in comparison to observation for us to
move forward as an intellectual enterprise. Applying activity theory in a
self-descriptive way, which somehow seems dangerous, we do delineate artifact
and motive, the latter being extremely complex in the confluence of
individual goals and desires to collective behavior.
Feyerabend acknowledged for enlightening us about the complexity of (physical
) science as a cultural-historical phenomenon, the work can be better defined
than 'anything goes.' His chip is the popular dissemination of science
ideology as the way it really is. This is a valid point. Yet what he
ignores is that these very beliefs of physical scientists form a significant
force in their coherence. The beliefs enable individuals to transcend
political or personal motivations and ambitions to collaborate toward a
common goal. Witness research papers on particle physics with 50ish authors.
Who is first author? Who is last author? Does the 30th author have more
prestige than the 32nd?
Chuck points to the important need for incentives for collegues to
collaborate - a useful tool is the prisoner dilemma. What is the matrix of
ecological pressures on an individual/group/institution that influence the
decisions to collaborate or not? In academia tenure includes criteria for
primary or sole authorship. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. Many
of the incentives lead us away from collaboration. Providing intellectual
space and resources, and the much harder cultural task of establishing
beliefs, as Chuck indicates, seems necessary to balance the matrix towards
collaboration.
The bottom line is that I do not understand the how positive critical theory
fits or doesn't fit with notions of collaborative research. Quite possibly
here, I think since the target phenomena is ch, the theory becomes self
descriptive and it is no longer possible to distinguish ideation from the
methodology applied to achieve it. Or is it? Please inform this
sociologically impaired person.
Bill
--------------------------------------
Date: 7/22/97 10:15 PM
To: Bill Barowy
From: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Chuck, Mike
This idea of positive critical theory really struck a chord with me. I've
been anxious over the years about how negative critical theory can be,
always focussing on discourse in the service of power - its use to
dominate and control. In my education work their role has often seemed to
be one of saying - stop, you're making things worse, you're just
reinforcing hegemonic discourses... but if I say, okay, well, what are the
alternatives... where are your descriptions of positive change... they
don't seem able to respond. Is there some kind of pathology here... why
look only at the negative? I guess it is more comfortable in some respect
to be able to say smugly 'I told you so'... ??? I think what we need is a
lot more celebratory discourse analysis!
Jim Martin
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Charles Bazerman wrote:
> Mike,
> I am not quite sure exactly how you might see positive critical
> theory, but I would hope that all the concepts I work with are guided by a
> spirit of critical, reflexive, informed participation--that is knowing
> what you are doing with others, making decisions about what is worth
> doing, and trying to figure out how to do it better. Critical theory as it
> has largely emerged has helped people identify those participations that
> don't wish to engage in and has given them some means to identify details
> of disengagement. That's good, people should get out of bad deals and
> should try to keep bad deals from being foisted upon them. On the other
> hand, we also need to figure out what the good deals are and how to pull
> them off successfully. Critical theory (as part of what has been called
> a culture of suspicion) has given us little guidance on this participatory
> end. Generally we have more than enough reasons to suspect each other and
> to be cautious in our interactions, and few enough positive experiences of
> complex satisfying interactions to maintain the sociality whioch is our
> medium of existence, so that people regularly resort to less than
> satisfying interpersonal strategies to meet their needs, which only
> undermine our sociality further. What we need more of are ways to
> positively identify what we need and agree to do and the means of
> accomplishing them.
>
> With respect to "reliably reconstitutable phenomena," I suppose
> one could say that was a critical way of identifying what some scientific
> practices do or make, as opposed to critically pointing out all the things
> they don't do, that some people have claimed they do.
> Your investigations of active cognition in situ and projects of
> growing activity in vitro as ways of extending cognition I see as moved by
> similar impulses of understanding that
> people are always trying to do things by their own best lights, no matter
> how things may look from various distanced perspectives--and that one can
> usually be of most help and support by working with and providing tools
> for people's current projects (unless they are clearly destructive) and
> the best way to draw people in new or more ambitious directions is to
> provide conditions, opportunities, tools, and guidance that attract them
> into new areas of activity and participation.
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> >
> > Chuck-- I like your idea of Reliably Reconstitutable Phenomena. I think
> > it fits somehow with the notion of a "positive critical theory" that
> > I have been playing with. Might they be thought of as coordinated
> > sets of lenses?
> >
> > I also think this is related to the strategy I developed in
> > the work described in Cultural Psychology. (On that topic, chapters 8-9
> > seem either to have confused people or they are on vacation, or....
> > Myself, I got a fine week away from work and near some beautiful
> > mountains and lakes and trout.
> > mike
> >
> >
>
>
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by qm.terc.edu with SMTP;22 Jul 1997 22:14:26 U
Received: from weber.ucsd.edu by is.TERC.EDU (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA08963; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:09:49 -0400
Received: (from procmail who-is-at localhost) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) id
RAA23971; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:10:40 +1000 (EST)
From: James Robert Martin <jmartin who-is-at mail.usyd.edu.au>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: RRP
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970722085600.1569B-100000 who-is-at humanitas.ucsb.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970723100622.14272K-100000 who-is-at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-Id: <"QcIkDC.A.e2F.nwU1z" who-is-at weber>
Resent-From: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Reply-To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
X-Mailing-List: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/4200
X-Loop: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: xmca-request who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu