According to Paul,
"I do think that the positions one holds have an objective ideological
character. Some are compatible with and may even reinforce existing
structures
of exploitation, in my opinion, and should not be allowed to mask
themselves as
otherwise. This is the work of critique."
If we were discussing Religion, the words 'faith' and 'gospel' or
'scripture,'
'Word,' 'Good,' 'Evil,' or belief would be commonplace. I suggest that
indeed,
much of what has been happening on this list is a matter of belief.
Academics
don't always admit the depth of belief present in their own praxis.
Religion has
no monopoly on fanaticism.
Molly
"Paul H.Dillon" wrote:
> Bill,
>
> at mike's request, after having apologized to him personally for any affront
> he might have taken from my misdirected message, I've simply tried to get on
> with what I understand to be the purpose of this discussion list. I'm truly
> sorry if you fail to distinguish critiques of your theoretical positions
> from attacks on your person which is the only motivation I can see for your
> ongoing crusade against me. I don't know you, Bill, and I admit that
> sometimes in the heat of a discussion with strongly opposed positions,
> things get said that sound as though the individual is being attacked But I
> tend to agree with Leontev's distinction between person and individual and
> although we are not "puppets" on the strings of totally deterministic
> forces, I do think that the positions one holds have an objective
> ideological character. Some are compatible with and may even reinforce
> existing structures of exploitation, in my opinion, and should not be
> allowed to mask themselves as otherwise. This is the work of critique. I
> don't think this kind of critique should be disallowed on xmca or that it
> should be considered flaming. If the comments were simply "what YOU think
> supports exploitation" then yes I think that would be flaming. But if the
> critique is directed at the theoretical position with the intention of
> demonstrating that either its objective content does not coincide with the
> individuals conception of it or that it is theoretically questionable, then,
> to my mind, that is most manifestly not flaming.
>
> Of course different theoretical positions do situate and have consequences
> for the individual. As Leont'ev wrote:
>
> "If the individual in given life circumstances is forced to make a choice,
> then that choice is not between meanings but between colliding social
> positions that are expresssed and recognized through these meanings."
>
> As far as I can discern objectionable content of my misdirected post
> concerned a dalliance with bourgeois ideologues. This has a very negative
> sound to it although many brilliant and decent people could be considered
> bourgeois ideologues. The "objectionable content" refers totally to a
> specific "social position" that might be "expressed and recognized" in a
> bourgeois ideology not to the qualities of the individual who might be
> considered one. Also, I just listed that as one of two possible
> explanations for what I perceived to be an ongoing delay of the Leont'ev
> reading. Personally, I believe that mike's intentions were (a) -- to
> deepen the discussion -- not (b) -- to maintain the implied relationship
> with whomever I might have been referring to and it's also possible I was
> only referring to ghosts of my own imagination. But then we all have angels
> and devils talking to us, don't we? I betrayed both angel and devil in the
> message to Andy. .
>
> It is important to remember, that the message that leads you to say "whoa"
> was never intended for the list. Although I posted some flames on the list
> last year, after discussing list etiquette with mike both via email and in
> person, I have assiduously avoided anything that seemed even remotely aimed
> at "individuals" since that time. We all have our own private thoughts and
> certainly you and the others you include in your list of aggrieved have
> written things off-list that none of you would want on the list. I think the
> distinction between public and private is important -- i'm not a
> totalitarian in any shape or form. And I think that when fights get
> personal they should be "taken outside" and also left there. It's very
> chilling when that line gets crossed especially when one was called outside
> originally by the one who later threatens to take it back inside..
>
> Let's face it. As we "internalize" different social theories these come to
> determine how we see ourselves and hence it's easy to take the attack on a
> theoretical position as an attack on one's person, especially when these
> theoretical positions reflect, as Leont'ev said, "colliding social
> positions."
>
> I personally don't think converting xmca into a soap opera helps anyone in
> the long run and hope you will hear (in both the sound and the silence) the
> wisdom of letting go of your personal crusade against me.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:55 PDT