Hi! Great to hear from you. Sorry I took so long to get
back to you. I was away over the week end & playing catch up
'til now. Looking back at your previous note, I think perhaps
de Certeau may be useful to you: _The Practice of
Everyday Life_ (& other) He, in any case, pays
attention to what we DO with what we're given, to
our consumption of culture, where resistance 'resides.'
I'm sure feminist critical theory might help, but
I can't think of anything specific. Have you heard
from others 'back channel' ?
Your comments on the limits of self reflection are
well taken here.
I'm off to a funeral. Sigh.
Judy
At 01:09 PM 11/24/98 +0800, you wrote:
>Judy and others,
>
>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
>>
>>
>
>
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