Hello all! My name is Howard and I (a long time lurker) find myself being
drawn into this fray to help me make sense for myself.
Eric - First I will restate my understanding of the critique of your original
position.
#1 You use instruments to obtain objective facts on which to plan efficient
services, however, facts always imply a theory. We cannot separate the
observational / experiential elements of our facts from the linguistic
elements, they interpenetrate each other (I am borrowing here from Hilary
Putnam (1995) Pragmatism).
#2 The theory behind the tests we discussed promised secure knowledge about
their human subjects, but this promise was found unwarranted in many
critiques. Quoting from Karlis Racevskis who begins by quoting Michel
Foucault (1998, Modernity's Pretenses) ' "Nothing in man - not even his body
- is sufficiently stable to serve as the basis for self recognition or for
understanding other men." It was to cover up this deficiency that humanisms
of various sorts needed to be constructed. A human essence, a telos for
humanity needed to be posited in order to provide rationalizations for
programs aspiring to improve humanities lot.' (p. 127)
#3 These programs were set up on rules of acting that were drawn from the
same theories that promised secure knowledge of other humans, but so often
served only to hide the operation of systems of dominance. Bureaucrats are
expected to follow the rules and act with ameaningful behavior, (See Leary's
discussion of the work of Sigmond Koch in American Psychologist, 56, pp.
425-432) but ameaningful behavior does not fit with our meaningful world
because of the unfaithfulness of the promise of secure knowledge.
This is not a critique of you Eric, it is a critique of the system. A system
that was said by Koch (Leary quoting Koch on p. 428) to have a 'conception of
knowledge (that) is fictionalistic, conventionalistic, "a-ontological." So
strongly does it see knowledge under such aspects that it sometimes seems to
suppose that the object of inquiry is an ungainly and annoying irrelevance,
that knowledge can be created by fiat.'
Enough critique, what to do about this is a difficult question. If your
experiences are like mine, most people do not join institutions in order to
have the people they manage question the foundations of what they very much
wish to go on taking for granted everyday. It could start with what EP
Thompson would call the difficult, long and painstaking process of developing
specific critique. Critique that does not go past the ears of these
bureaucrats, but registers with positive possibilities and requires a
response that can be supported by all. This would be a difficult project,
worthy of supporting each other, and where I'm trying to find my way.
Eric - some initial questions come to mind.
-Where do these test help you to understand the processes these people go
through and where do they serve to help others supervise you in rule governed
behavior and is that supervision helpful?
-Do you need knowledge about the essence of the people you serve or about the
ways in which they participate with others in the culture surrounding you
both and do the tests provide any knowledge of this kind.
My true intent is not to be preachy, but to challenge myself.
All the best to you Eric and to all!
For all still with me, sorry for the unending wordiness of doctoral students.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:21 PDT