I've been looking for suggestions on "reproduction" and "transformation".
I'm not complaining though :) as I'm quite familiar with the dynamics of
xmca discussions. I've too long relied on the xmca community as an
intellectual support group for generating and experimenting with ideas to
lose faith in it.
* * *
A bit of a sharing of my feelings in response to your discussions:
There can be a danger of simplifying what it means to understand multiple
or others' perspectives. The possibility of dialogue between peoples of
difference (e.g., based on gender, sexual orientation, culture, class,
ethnicity, history...) (and of course we know all these are constructions,
not with solid boundaries, but nonetheless we live with the consequences of
these constructions every day, like it or not). The common tricky scenario
in a democratic society is one in which different peoples don't even speak
the same language or, worse still, think they speak the same language,
which is in fact loaded with vastly different taken-for-granted assumptions
and meanings for different people. Dialogue in a democratic society then
means much more than just a self de-centering practice but perhaps also,
more fundamentally, a critically reflexive mindset to uncover one's own as
well as others' deepest, implicit, taken-for-granted ontological and
epistemological assumptions which underlie ways of seeing and speaking that
can be highly incompatible, or mutually unintelligible if not absurd.
For instance, in an article I read, a "controversial issue" given by a
literal arts teacher (with the good intention to train students to see
others' perspectives) for students to address is:
"Does the United States have to be the policeman for other countries?".
Well, this question is loaded with a whole host of US-centric
presuppositions taken for granted, forcefully though implicitly asserted.
The danger is that students who think they are taking up very different
perspectives of others are merely arguing within the same choir, sharing
basically similar fundamental assumptions about the world and their
position in the world.
Habermas's notion of cummunictive rationality can be another approach to
formulating the basis and procedures for the possibility of rational
communication between peoples of difference. I'd like to hear your
reactions to this, well, one of these days.
Cheers,
Angel L.
At 01:08 AM 11/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Jay's last posting on our cultural bias towards nominalizing
>--i.e., breaking into categories, which refer supposedly to
>something "out there", real (which is itself probably
>an effect of our dependence on written communication) --
>versus contextualizing, which fuzzes categorial divisions
>but renders experience more precisely -- raises for me the
>question, 'under what conditions are we likely to complexify
>social reality and what can we do to create those conditions
>under social pressure to do otherwise?'
>
>If we were to imagine a counter meta-discourse about research,
>knowledge, what counts... building up the sedimentation in our
>own research practices that would could rival what is now
>presupposed to be of value, it would follow that question.
>
>Or, alternatly, Under what conditions do we defer to categorial
>stereotypical characterizations of people, events, situations, and
>is there anything we can do to interrupt our disposition?
>Obviously, in social roles of power & authority, we are inclined
>to go WITh a dominant discourse. Deans, administrators,
>policy people, ourselves, when we are serving administrative goals,
>or when we want wide consensus for what we say, or people who simply
>want power, are those most likely to rely on the taken-for-granted "real."
>Those who are unburdened by institutional responsibilities or
>"us" when we step out of institution-advancing roles can
>afford to (or feel compelled to) imagine alternative possibilities.
>
>I was struck by Diane's note:
>>complicating identity means - materially - dealing with people face to face.
>>kids do it all the time. the older the kids, the more complex their usses
>>of identity become...
>
>The inclination to do differently, to engage with 'difference', to
>"hear"/ orient to the non-dominant perspective -- the key here
>is ENGAGEMENT. [For an administrator, the _prospect_ of engaging
>what is Different probably IS an either-or matter. Prospective
>candidates are stamped "deficient" or "competitive"; those
>who are competitive are either IN or OUT, etc. But actual engagement
>- interpersonal meaning-making -- is the suspension, it seems to me,
>of just this power to decide the fate of another.
>Engagement projects the frame that both participants are "in"
>(we are both part of this story).
>
>Too much to say, too much to do to say it.
>
>Whadoy'all think?
>'til later, Judy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
>Graduate School of Education
>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>10 Seminary Place
>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
>Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake
>
>