Reviewed what I know of Lefebvre's work.
It appears to me that his essential contribution is the extension (I'm not
even sure that is the correct term) of objectification to space.
Apparently some PeeMods regard his work as a challenge to Hegelian concepts
of continuous time and space. My understanding of Hegel's considerations of
definition and quantification of space and time indicates that they are
objectifications - concepts, and that space and time are no less
objectifiable than any other experienced conditions. In fact his
explanation of the experience that engenders objectification of space
appears to be the most "materialistic" feature of his general philosophy.
"But geometry is not required to deduce that space necessarily has precisely
three dimensions, for it is not a philosophical science, and may therefore
presuppose space as its object." Philosophy of Nature I Mathematics §197
and
"It may be noted in passing that it was an extraordinary notion of Kant's to
claim that the definition of the straight line as the shortest distance
between two points is a synthetic proposition, for my concept of
straightness contains nothing of size, but only a quality. In this sense
every definition is a synthetic proposition. What is defined, the straight
line, is in the first place the intuition or representation, and the
determination that it is the shortest distance between two points
constitutes in the first place the concept (namely, as it appears in such
definitions, cf. § 110). That the concept is not already given by the
intuition constitutes precisely the difference between the two, and is what
calls for a definition. That something seems to the representation to be a
quality, though its specificity rests on a quantitative determination, is
something very simple, and also the case for example with the right angle,
the straight line, and so on." Philosophy of Nature I Mathematics §199.
What is lacking in Hegel's conception of space is the relation that LeFebvre
makes between objectifications of space and the complex of other objects
that comprise knowledge (though I suspect that Hegel regards geometry as a
fancy tool rather than the path to high philosophical truths).
Leander paper is interesting. It is interesting to compare the discordant
relationships between the mediated cabin building space and the complex
spatialities of educational establishments described by Leander.and the
effects of the construction of spaces of resistance by Kibbutz youths (in
one case, a tent village as an act of protest and in another case, a sauna
as a special meeting place) on the complex and often quite delicate
spatialities of the kibbutz community.
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cole" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: leander paper
> I have now read Kevin Leander's article, "Polycontextual
> construction zones: mapping the expansion of schooled space
> and identity" several times, and do not feel I have by any
> means got it all straight in my head.
>
> As I understand it, there are several main messages:
> 1. The existence of a school within a school and a project-based
> activity for that alternative school provides opportunities
> for expansive learning and transformation of identities in
> productive ways.
>
> 2. It is important to keep simultaneous, spatially distinct
> "contexts" in mind in CHAT research in addition to temporal
> sequence.
>
> 3. The productivity of interactions among simultaneously existing
> activities (polycontexts) arises in good measure from conflicts
> among them.
>
> 4. There is a growing literature from historical/economic geography
> which articulates in important ways with current chat discourse
> and their integration should prove productive.
>
> (I am sure there are other main points, but these came out of
> my fingertips at the moment).
>
>
> In so far as I have correctly articulated these points, I fully
> agree with them and appreciated the detailed analyses of interactions
> and discussion of prior literature, not all of which I was/am
> familiar with. But I also have questions which relate to the
> way in which the theoretical/conceptual toolkit, which is very
> extensive, is deployed and the extent to which key terms are
> used consistently. And in some cases, I came away puzzled.
>
> I'll list a couple of puzzlements in hopes that Kevin and others
> will move in to help me out.
>
> 1. Context and polycontextuality.
> I found Steve's analysis of object in Kristin's article where
> he was able to group uses of "object" partricularly help and would
> love to be able to do the same analysis here, starting with the
> term, context. We all know it is at least as polysemous as object
> and my guess it is used upwards of 100 times in this article. But
> its use seemed to me to wobble some, or else my interpretive
> system, which always wobbles (!) made it seem so (talk about
> problems relating subject and object!). Sometimes it appeared
> to be a spatial term in a non-relational sense, sometimes virtually
> synonymous with social space.
>
> So, social space is another term whose meaning, in distinction
> from other terms like activity and context, puzzled me.
>
> Consequently, I got tangled up from time to time in the use of thge
> term, polycontextualisty. In a regular high school isn't there
> polycontextuality associated with space all over? In the hallway,
> the bathroom, the badk of the classroom, the principal's office,
> etc.
>
> Laminate. What meaning is carried by laminate that is different
> from the word, "connect" when used for social systems?
>
> There are some questions for openers. I am still in the middle
> of Steve's interleaved victor/jay exchange, but now face 2 hours
> of meetings.
>
> So, off I go another part of campus.... or is that another
> activity system? Or, ugh, another context?
>
> Polysemously yours.
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT