>this assumes quite a lot - isn't it more likely that the conditions are
>always present, but concealed by traditional practice, institutional
>ideology, discourse, and so on? meaning, the "conditions" are not
>"created" but are revealed as always-already present?
Your phrasing is much better. What about the hypothesis (i.e., the point)
>>That would require familiarity w/ and trust
>>of the external researcher whose actions bring to the surface the Big
>>Contradiction that explains the prevailing cycles of activity & the
>>different tensions/problems that everyone sees; and yes, diane, the
>>duration of the project and number of analyses performed and shared seem
>>central to this stage-setting.
>
>hm. again, in my experience, the Big Contradictions come from within, not
>from an other's deliberate attempts to "induce" such a recognition - i
>always thought that a serious understanding of writings by folks such as
>Foucault, or Althusser (biographies and all) would point towards more
>revelation about practice than any particular manipulation - reading
>Perkins-Gilman's "The Yellow Wallpaper," or Kafka's "Metamorphosis," can
>point towards Foucault, Althusser, and other institutional criticisms -
>understanding Freud, or Judith Butler, as well - in my experience, it is
>through understanding the available interpretations of social systems and
>structures that the Big Contradictions
the whole point and for me potential excitement of AT is that it
presupposes much critical and contemporary theory but it is directed to
actual conditions of real participants in everyday activities. THAT
distinguishes it from critical interventions by authors, performance
artists, whatever -- it's not only disrupting us as reflective selves but
disrupting us in our everyday practices.
And for that, the researcher as outsider may perhaps be necessary. I don't
know. Action research certainly shares the potential for disrupting the
everyday. But AT offers a flexible but rigorous / systematic tool for
intervention, which, if participants buy into it, might have pervasive
effects. Now whether the effects it has on an institution are "good" in MY
sense of good, I'm not sure. I mean, maybe we (as participants in some
institution, like health or academia) have to get better at life within
fast, global capital, but better at it for what? It's the critical edge,
the relation of the institution to the status quo, that I'm not sure about.
>emerge.
>as such, a duration is conditioned by learning, not methods. ooh. radical!
>ha ha
well, we have a different perspective on the utility of methods,
systematicity, and all that. The value of systematicity and of theory in
general is that it affords collective learning, eh?
>>My questions concern the stage-setting steps of the process, but I agree
>>the springboard metaphor has potential as the moment where
>>individual/collective terms seem least to be in concert and most in need
>>to
>>be concerted.
>
>again, the idea that a single individual can "orchestrate" the Big
>Contradiction strikes me as Highly Unlikely. the idea that a coordinated
>concert will produce the conflicts that lead to learning is also mythical,
>really, since it is conflict that produces conflict - a tidy methodology
>will, invariably, construct a tidy interpretation - regardless of the
>collective activity.
Well, that's not how i read the last chapters of LBE. It's a complicated
and not solo effort -- but you're right, it is still mythical for me since
I haven't done it. And I agree with your previous agreement with my
previous political commentary :) the role of the researcher(s) in relation
to the others in the institution should be always in question....
>to immerse in the collective activity, i'd suppose a large amount of
>research-control must be given up in order to really be receptive to the
>processes of an activity. don't you think? i mean, in order to be "true"
>to CHAT?
yeah, and I interpreted the methods of developmental research to be
procedures for giving up control....
>>But IF the stage were effectively set, then springing towards a better
>>understanding rather than out of the playing field seems probable.
>
>again, the idea that one could "set the stage" for change is, to me,
>wildly presumptuous.
>it's impossible to know what will "set it off" so to speak.
>by the same token, it is entirely possible to participate in an activity
>where the ambition is to "set it off" so long as the process remains the
>condition of activity, and not the researcher's agenda. know what i mean?
This is what I'd like to understand more about -- how the researcher(s)
'set it off' both shaping the course of change and then stepping out of the
way. I jez
dunno.
>hm. my thinking suggests that as people learn new languages (say, please
>say "THEORY") the interpretations of that, in terms of significance and
>meaning, emerge - these emergent interpretations of theory can become the
>condition of change,
>because it entails self-reflection.
>frankly, i don't understand how anyone can "study" Foucault and not become
>partially insane, if only because of the inherent contradiction of
>institutionalizing the institutional critique, silencing the very
>articulation in an effort to articulate the silence, so to
>Wittgensteinian-esquely infer,
>(ahem) -
>
>IDEAS change people's perspectives about how they see and do things,
>languages alter the ways people speak about things,
>and it seems to me that theories, as ideas and languages, offer any
>activity a valuable point of departure as well as a critical investigation
>into what "practice" engages.
diane, diane, what about performance? it's not the word it's the act or the
word AS act....
judy
>
>diane
>a.k.a. theory slut!!
>
>
>
>
>"If you'll excuse me now, I'd like to be alone with my sandwich."
>Homer
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:15 PDT