Re: What is praxis?

Peter Farruggio (pfarr who-is-at uclink4.berkeley.edu)
Tue, 4 May 1999 22:24:58 -0800

One of Lenin's most significant contributions to the art of revolution,
most explicitly articulated in What Is To Be Done? was the argument for a
professional revolutionary party to lead the working class on its historic
mission, the overthrow of capitalism, because the capitalist state would
never allow the class to develop a revolutionary consciousness
spontaneously (secret police, provocateurs, counterrevolutionary dirty
tricks, etc, and the manipulation of Gramsci's ideological hegemony to
create false consciousness) In Vygotsky's few political writings I see no
rejection of Lenin's ideas. My reading of postmodernist lit suggests a
sharp rejection of this as "determinist"and an espousal of a "follow the
people" sort of relativism.

Pete Farruggio

>
>My inclination is the CHAT site is based on the Artistotlian division that
>Bruce mentions. In reference to Friere I would be curious if "praxis" was
>Freire's word or what it was translated from. I see Freire, Activity
>Theory, Pragmatism for better or worse attempts at dealing with this
>dualism. Freire's notion of "praxis" would be closer to what Newman and
>Holzman refer to as "tool and results" than a "tool for results" in my
>opinion. Theory or Freire's "praxis" emerges within practice not a priori
>to it. Dewey, pragmatism and all that "wonderful" stuff that ocurred with
>progressiveism is how I have tended to see "praxis" (action) in that theory
>(that ivory tower) was a priori to practice.
>
>Some of the more "post" stuff is questioning the whole division itself and
>the progressive assumptions that theory should influence practice. The
>argument goes like the so called theory that occurs in "institutions of
>bourgeois development" is also a practice, but ought not be put in a
>position to have answers for other practices. In constrast to activity
>theory which I see as attempting the synthesize the division of practice
>and theory, the post perspective questions the whole aristotian division in
>the first place. Rather than creating a synthesis of two polor opposites
>it questions if the division in the first place is useful.
>
>
>
>> my first thought on this was, under what conditions is any
>> action NOT theorized, or any practice not influenced by theory?
>
>To use another comment of Freire's one cannot have a revolution for the
>people, but only with the people. For me this points toward a theory and
>practice, rather than a theory for practice. So much stuff in the
>progressive era was an attempt at theory for practice in which it
>transformed others, but wasn't willing to be transformed. On one level as
>Vygotsky hinted at theory should be in a subordinate position to practice
>rather than the other way around. Theory emerges within practice as a way
>to understand and transform it, rather than something seperate from and a
>priori to practice itself.
>
>Nate
>
>
>> """"""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>> When she walks,
>> the revolution's coming.
>> In her hips, there's revolution.
>> When she talks, I hear revolution.
>> In her kiss, I taste the revolution.
>> (poem by Kathleen Hanna: Riot Grrl)
>> ******************************************
>> diane celia hodges
>> university of british columbia
>> centre for the study of curriculum and knowledge
>> vancouver, british columbia, canada
>>
>>