'twas intended for xmca
Happy new year!
-----Original Message-----
From: Vera John-Steiner [mailto:vygotsky@unm.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 1:02 PM
To: diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Who can object to a little subjecting?
Hi,
Perhaps, our problem is that we follow the general dichotomy between
objective and subjective rather than seeing them as interwoven processes. As
I am writing this sentence, I use a socially shared form of communication,
the English language (objectified in a dictionary, subjectively inflected
with my multilingual past, the distinction resonant of Vygotsky's meaning
and sense.).
I think with you, puzzling your collective thoughts, while contributing my
particular understanding of CHAT, collaborating in making explicit my lived
experience which is always a mixture of his/herstory shaped by world
events, and the specificity of where we stand and breathe at a particular
moment. To me objective is a temporarily verifiable fact, where the methods
and instruments of verification change, all the time. But holding on to a
moment of agreement
about a "fact" is useful, it is a moment of pause while we engage in the
endless questioning.
Vera
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Diamondstone <judith.diamondstone@verizon.net>
To: Paul H.Dillon <illonph@pacbell.net>
Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Saturday, December 29, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: Who can object to a little subjecting?
>Paul, thanks for the clarification. But why wouldn't individual psychology
>be relevant to understanding culture? Have you read Valerie Walkerdine? You
>won't like her, but she makes a good case for psychology -- specifically,
>working class psychology, which she argues poses a threat to the many
>projects, Marxism included, that attempt to fix, transform, &/or regulate
>the working class. But that aside, it seems significant that those on xmca
>who problematize 'lived experience,' make of it an object of concern, tend
>to be women & gays, members of non-dominant groups; the ones who dismiss it
>as irrelevant or even misleading (threatening?) are all guys. Do you think
>there's any cultural significance to that?
>
>
>Judy
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 01:00:06 PST