Jay wrote:
> But NONE of us can understand the "emic" or insider perspective of a group
> from which we are categorially excluded by the practices of a larger social
> system that includes both, and especially not that Other's perspective
> toward our own group. And, by implication, NONE of us can understand in any
> comprehensive way a complete categorial system (e.g. the gender system, the
> class system), because we cannot view it from more than one position within
> it, and we cannot do so because of how the system itself operates. This
> leads to the most radical of the postmodern dilemmas: either we simply give
> up the idea that there can be coherent 'master narratives' or general
> overviews of such systems, or we try to imagine an alternative involving
> the creation of new communities in which not only are the various
> mutually-excluding viewpoints represented (as in a research collective,
> say), but these specialized subcommunities create new kinds of relations
> among the viewpoints themselves ... i.e. the members alter their
> fundamental, say, gender perspectives -- if this is possible.
>
> Such an approach of course ultimately still cannot return one to the
> positivistic nirvana, since such a research collective to succeed would
> have to, in some critical ways, shift its own perspective outside that of
> the rest of the community, and so become newly unable to co-construct its
> insider perspectives. Of course the more radical view of this is simply
> that a theoretical overview of the system is only needed if it can help to
> change the system, and the collective will have already done this locally
> and can dispense with pretensions to omniscience...
And that reminded me of:
Shylock:
"... He hath disgraced me, and hinder'd me half a million; laught at my losses,
mockt at my gains, scorn'd my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends,
heated mine enemies: and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath
not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by
the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian
is? If you prick us, do we not blead? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you
poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? if we are
like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that." (Shakespeare)
I fully agree with Jay that our different groups and communities build barriers
between themselves, barriers that enable these different groups to exist as
different. Just a glimpse of insight into the other group would in some cases (or
all cases) be subverive to one own's group identity. That may be how the social
worlds function.
But is it impossible to change it? Is it impossible to build a "coherent 'master
narrative'"? Is it impossible to make a step away of our own positions and
perspectives and to take a look through another person's eyes? Is it impossible
to build a mutual dialogue in which all will gradually learn more? I think it is.
And I think you don't have to be a minority or an opressed majority to be ABLE to
understand and learn about other's experiences, values, motivations, knowledge.
The question is whether such a knowledge would threaten your own beliefs,
judgments, understandings? Or would it enhance you, enrich your repertoire of
responses and insights?
Ana
-- -------------------------------------- | Ana Marjanovic-Shane | | 151 W. Tulpehocken St. | | Philadelphia, PA 19144 | | | | Phone: (215) 843-2909 | | Fax : (215) 843-2288 | | | | anchi who-is-at geocities.com | | http://www.geocities.com/~anchi/ | --------------------------------------