Virginia,
I found the paper on ADHD very interesting. I particularily liked how
various dominant discourses were defined and their relationship to each
other were described. A couple questions emerged when reading the paper.
1). Ideology: This word was used throughout the paper, so I am curious of
how you are using it. The glossery of Bakhtin (1981) points out a
differentiation between American and Russian use of the word.
"This is not to be confused with its politically oriented English cognate.
"Ideology" in Russian is simply an idea system. But, it is swmiotic in the
sense that it involves the concrete exchange of signs in society and in
history."
So, my question would be are you using ideology more in line with Bakhtin or
the more political conatation in the American sense of the term.
2). I was curious about the issue of "human subjects" in the paper. It is
mentioned the undergraduates were given info about the study, but no
information on the subjects themselves. The field notes were taken from the
undergraduates "everyday life" so I am curious how the human subject issues
were dealt with. This is a very big issue at our University right now, so I
am curious how it is addressed in this kind of research.
3). I enjoyed how resistance to dominant discourses was addressed. In
reference to the Medical Discourse you stated,
"Many speakers in our data rejected, contested, or refashioned large aspects
of the Medical Discourse. Our claim here is that the cultural power of
Medical Discourse as a way of framing childhood behavior problems is so
dominant that language users have little choice but to contend with it in
some fashion, whether they appropriate the Discourse with reflexive
acceptance, mild modification, or dramatic resistance."
For me, it was useful because it didn't position resistance outside the
Medical Discourse, but rather very much related to it.
4). Lastly you end the paper by stating,
"We are left with the sense that medical and educational professionals must
remain ever attentive to the possibility that a Discourse can limit the
opportunities for parents, teachers, and community members to actively
question and reconstruct communal life, to constructively imagine and
discuss more hopeful and promising practices and structures of
conviviality."
While I agree with this, there does seem to be certain (or fear
of)consequences for those who need medication. I remember after the initial
school shootings there was a sense that if we "kid watched" certain kids
better, got them the medication they needed, the shootings could be
prevented. This was discussed discursively in the Media Discourse section,
yet it was not addressed pragmatically. Which is too say, I really enjoyed
the paper, but deconstructing certain discourses carry a higher price than
others. Demonstrating how "development" is socially constructed through the
discourses of psychology and Developmentally Appropriate Practice seem to
carry less risk than demonstrating the social construction of ADHD through
the Medical Discourse.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:20:33 PDT