Thanks, Phil, for the contribution to xmca-land. I think you commented well
on points that Kathie raised -- Kathie, what do you think?
I'd like to layer one more bit of commentary here, though it won't embed any
answers.
First, a disagreement. I agree with you that many important points in
Stanton's paper were submerged in the discussion over "paradigmns" and I am
sorry for that. Nevertheless, I found the paradigm challenge to be
illuminating AND appropriate, though not, perhaps, in the form it ultimately
took. First, there was Stanton, the writer, to consider. And then there was
the fight that ensued, to no one's benefit in my opinion. The challenge is
yet important to consider, to include in our discussion. The methodological
issues are important to all of us. I take a both-and stance here. I wonder
if Stanton will signify slightly differently as a result, at least when
presenting his contribution to an audience like us. Maybe not. But his brave
and HONEST, self-reflective response DEFINITELY set an example here (not
that we have all followed it) and I'd like to think couldn't have been
anything but positive for Stanton in the end. I don't like that sentence,
but pushing on --
By the way, thanks for recalling Jay's words. They so often hit _multiple_
targets underlying the obvious; they are sorely missed in this forum, by
this occasional participant and by others. We all need more time.
I certainly agree w/ this:
>>And so the worst outcome would be silence and resignation from diverse,
>>"non-orthodox" perspectives.
and with this:
>>Ideally we would be a community of disinterested human beings who add to
>>the development of critical thought and knowledge without confusing the
>>word "critical" with the word "negative". For me, critical means
>>questioning - the fundamental nature of inquiry - with a healthy scepticism
>>of any taken-for-grantedness we might care to name....
I would add, questioning not only others but also ourselves. Perhaps it's
not just agression we have to avoid, but also concern for the other we have
to exercise, challenging our own commitments both to ideas and to style...
It's a dance, always.
Judy
>On the flip side, there's a problem, I think, of taking some part of an
>argument and extrapolating it out as being representative of some Other,
>oppositional political or intellectual worldview. An example of this for me
>was the discussion on Stanton Wortham's paper which, in some cases, seemed
>to descend into largely irrelevant paradigmatic criticisms rather than
>engaging the very valid, interesting, and even contentious points that the
>paper raised. Paradigmatic issues are important to me, but I think that
>Stanton's insights and the potential discussion they raised were submerged
>in the tangential issues of the political arguments about how they were
>raised (after all, the data were secondary which I think was an important
>choice on Stanton's behalf considering the issues he was addressing). If we
>disallow a paradigm or worldview, we disallow the insights it offers and
>thus narrow the debate to epistemological givens. I don't think this is
>healthy, but I could be wrong.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:02 PST