>
>Very sorry for my neophrasism. I make up words, too carelessly.
no need to apologize; I'm partial myself to neophraseology.
so i made one up too: internal-recursivity. :-)
>Trying to make sense of my own phrasing, retrospectively --
>no matter how fine-grained and nuanced the distinctions we
>make among mixtures & gradients of affect, unless we account
>for the relational ground of feelings, we won't alter
>the binary character of our representations (of self/other)
>and so we won't undo the effects (like ideological control)
>of overly-simple taxonomies. That's close to what I was
>thinking at the time. Now I'm not so sure of the sense it makes.
it articulates, I think, a curious aspect of affect - we can never really
be certain, in our relations, of what people are emotionally reacting to;
that is, for example, ... well. Take me...please. no, no:
I grew up with a "nazi" father - my relations now with authority are
precarious, at best. I find I express nearly irrepressible hostility
and distrust with authority figures; I deliberately challenge authorities,
i tend to want to antagonize people in positions of authority and am
belligerent,
often, without any provocation other than the person's "status";
by the same token, I struggle ceaselessly to acknowledge my own
authority; to understand when *I* am in a position of authority;
and I resist these positions because of my distrust and hostility...
which has nothing to do with the people I am relating with: I am
relating with internally-structured relations, and projecting these to the
people
I meet NOW.
SO: my "anger" manifests in contexts which are informed first through memory
and internal associations with my father... because I was discouraged from
expressing any negative emotions as a child, I canot do so very
successfully now.
And yet I do: passive agressive, disguised hostility (not-so-disguised,
actually);
or I lie to people in positions of power habitually, ...and I react often
in ways which I feel are inapporpriate because I cannot gauge what is
happening outside, given that the responses originate internally...
what I am aluding to here are the vast complexities of what cannot be known
about affectivity. As you write:
>unless we account
>for the relational ground of feelings, we won't alter
>the binary character of our representations (of self/other)
>and so we won't undo the effects (like ideological control)
>of overly-simple taxonomies.
the "relational ground of feelings" is an historical ground, not linear,
but recursive. Internally recursive, and triggered by relations which
occur in different times and places, but which trace to
internally-recursive associations; thus projections, resistances, anger,
hostility, or,...
as a child care worker, I recall the clinging children, the children who
wanted constant affection, hugging, clinging, needing;
and how uncomfortable this made me feel, my sense that this was
inappropriate for them was, I knew, because it was denied me, or I denied
myself,
or my family history did not include displays of affection...
and why are these children so clingy? is "clinginess" bad? is "neediness"
a sign of egocentricism, or neglect? when can we know when our responses
are to others, and when our responses are from ourselves?
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
tel: (604)-874-4807
mail:
3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8