I was reading our very interesting discussion on what is praxis. My own
"chewing" this concept is that praxis is active transcending one's own
sociocultural and historical limitations (i.e., upbringing, membership,
preferences, primary discourse). I like to quote Lois Holzman's words of
dedication in her recent book "School for growth," "To the young people of
the All Stars Talent Show Network -- who create hope and possibility each
day as they build environments in which they can grow in deadly and violent
world." For me, this quote nicely describes what "praxis" is (or at least,
what I like to think "praxis" is).
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kwang-Su Cho [mailto:ksthink@psylab.yonsei.ac.kr]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 10:26 AM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: What is praxis?
>
>
>
> Nate,
>
> The two sites and your comments on the division of theory and practice
> are very helpful, though I couldn't keep up with the full meanings.
>
> Kwang-Su
>
> On Tue, 4 May 1999, nate wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Diane HODGES <dchodges who-is-at interchange.ubc.ca>
> > To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 1:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: What is praxis?
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>