>
>I disagree fundamentally here, both with the idea of the 'local' and the
>idea that empathy only comes through soul-searching. The idea that social
>awareness begins with the local is again a product of the feelings of
>fragmentation and powerlessness of the period we're living through. My own
>political consciousness was formed, not just by the local, but - and here I
>date myself a bit - the Vietnam War, May 68 in France and also some things
>nearer to home (the UK).
again, there are many sense of the term "local" as you mention - local, in
the context of the war, is both how it effected you, affected you and your
behaviours, interpretations;
but of course none of this experience with the externalities
will help cultivate a social conscious if one can't first situate the self
locally,
emotionally, in-relation to what is happening.
Local is what is happneing, I think, to the individual at any given time,
even if that is a phone call from the other side of the world _ it isn't
geographically local, but its effects are.
>
>As for soul-searching being the source of awareness, I'll just quote Goethe:
>'In the beginning was the Deed.'
I agree totally that action is needed over self-reflexive munderings and
ponderusings;
but the same token,
without it, action is ideological and counter-producutive to change..
diane wrote:
>>Granted, it can become excessive navel gazing without the social relation
>>or connection made explicit, but I do agree with Kathie that it is the
>>essential first step.
>
>And where does the social relation or connection come from to begin with??
given that therer can be no origin, I would reckon it does not come from
anywhere, but, as I suggested, rather emerges from experiences with local
emphathy.
To "begin" ..." we" are born into social situations:
from day one, we are with an "other" (be it the mother's heartbeat in the womb)
or the hands of a nurse dipping the body of a newborn into water,
we are constantly internalizing the external.
THUS, it would seem to me that the only way for an external/social conscience to
develop ethically,
would involve a repeated understanding of where life is being personal and
where it is not, and how we react to what goes on,.
In my experience, most folks take everything far too personally, and so
this suggests that., historically, we are still too ego-centric to
cultivate a global social conscience.
>
>
>>
>>and I do believe it is 'dissed' these days
>>as part of a conspiracy to
>> stop us
>>from
>>thinking.
>
>I think there's more of a conspiracy to stop us from acting than from
>thinking. (Not that I'm advocating doing either without the other.) 'Pure
>thought' only becomes dangerous
> when it takes on a material form...
I'm not sure I beleive in pure thought, but I do think that we need to be
thinking more critically
about our actions, so perhaps we are agreeing here.
diane wrote:
>>...this de-valuing inner-work, I mean...not that were mocking Phil, I meant
>>that more on a larger
>>scale, it is a huge issue. ESPECIALLY for women.
since the 18th century, women have been encouraged to diarize and
journalize their inner
experiences as a way for them to express/vent/discharge their irrational
bouts of madness.
Woman, classified as neurotics, are not lauded for their difficult
self-reflexive work in relation to their professioal lives; rather, they
are dismissed as "phenomenologist feminists" or some such term which
suggests a lack of rigor.
When women produce self-reflexive work, it is not respected the same as
when men produce
reflexive texts. That's what I meant by the woman remark.
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
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8