Talking about different ways of reading. I think you both will agree that
there's more than one legitimate way of reading *the collected work*" of
any author -- the historian's situating of each work at its stage in the
life process, deliberately seeking NOT to know in advance where the author
went later has its legitimate function, as does the proleptic reading of
later generations of colleagues appropriating the work as a whole, looking
for consistency rather than difference, as Nate writes. Or, to phrase it
differently: reading earlier work in the teleological light of where the
author brought it later. This may not be correct in terms of historical
process, but I still think it is legitimate in terms of carrying on a
tradition. At least it is very useful as an approach to learning. And I
don't see a holistic reading as precluding critical appropriation, either.
The way Ageliki Nicolopoulou and Jeff Weintraub read Piaget in their 1998
article on "Individual and Collective Representations in Social Context" in
*Human Development* 41/4 has this holistic character: where they
acknowledge his theoretical insights about social life as an essential
factor in development, locating both the pros of well turned formulations
and the contras from Piaget's "more careless moments" as a writer...
observing that while he certainly could "talk the talk" he does not really
"walk the walk" of drawing the consequences for empirical work.
Then, taking quotes out of context and letting them stand for the whole
will always be problematic, as will simplified readings of adversaries...
but at this point: how do I avoid drowning in the library?
Eva