Hi Eugene,
Oops, I replied to your recent xmca post to me but sent it to your personal
e-mail, not xmca. When time permits, I would like to understand better
your critique of Kris and Barbara's notion of "appropriateness" in the
context of cultural ways of meaning, repertoires, dexterity, etc. Here is
what I wrote the other day to egg on this discussion ...
************************************
Hi Eugene,
Continuing on repertoires and appropriateness ...
you say:
>... being Barbara's students I'm a bit familiar with her use of the
>term "appropriate" (and "appropriation"). And I have still a problem with
>that.
This is very interesting to me, Eugene. I really appreciate you helping me
understand these issues.
You continue about Kris and Barbara:
>... in my view, they objectivize and finalize appropriateness
>(and competence) as a state rather than a boundary and a struggle.
This would imply a one-sided view on the part of these authors, who perhaps
sees the *static* (the conforming) dimensions as the norm, while
incorrectly understating and diminishing the *dynamic* (the challenging)
dimensions of appropriateness and competence.
but then you say:
>Ontologically, "appropriateness" (and competence) exists only as a problem
>of disrupting power relations of "we" recognized as such through
>oppositional solidarity.
Now, I would argue (hopefully, in an "appropriate" way! :-) ) that *both*
dimensions - the conformist and the oppositional - of appropriateness and
competency are needed to get the entire dynamic picture. Don't you
agree? We need to think in terms of both states and also struggles; of
conformity and also challenge; of the static and also the dynamic. To be
sure, everything is in constant conflict and change - this is an
ontological truth I would certainly subscribe to - but not at the same rate
or in the same way. Sometimes the appropriate thing to do is
conform. Other times, to be disruptive and
oppositional. "Appropriateness" in this view is relative and situational,
and based on the intents and interests of the individual at the time.
My reading of Barbara and Kris is they are including this full range of
conforming as well as oppositional behaviors as potential repertoires for
people - they are being relativist, not absolutist, and being concrete and
specific, not overgeneral and abstract, about what repertoires are
"appropriate." I would see this as another aspect of their notion of
dexterity. Or am I reading something into their writing that is not there?
And you say
>Moreover, I think that it is at best an illusion or
>at worse coercion to claim that appropriateness (and competence) pre-exists
>the conflict I refer to.
If I am reading this idea right, I agree. Determining in advance what is
appropriate would indeed be illusive and even coercive. Researcher's and
teachers using such pre-conceived notions of what is appropriate would be
using abstract criteria, not concrete analysis, to understand any given
situation.
I certainly agree that every situation must be taken concretely, and only
in that way can we understand why and how individuals make their particular
moves. Acting disruptively, for example, may very well be in a person's
self-perceived interests, and could be understood as appropriate and competent.
Eugene, your next point is especially thought-provoking:
>
>Bruno Latour wrote about science-in-action (in my words, I do not have the
>book with me for the exact quote) "machine works when relevant people are
>convinced that it works". I would paraphrase him as "children competently
>employ a variety of repertoires in the numerous contexts they deal with WHEN
>relevant (and powerful) adults are convinced that they do so."
However, I don't understand your point! Please explain ...
You continue:
>For me the
>most interesting and thought provoking part of Barbara's statement is at its
>beginning "we would then be able to characterize a child's..." as an
>opposition of powerful "we" to less powerful "child" who supposed to be
>"characterized" ("finalized" in Bakhtin's term) for a certain, probably
>institutional, reason.
Well, yes, Barbara and Kris here are speaking of an important "we" -
social science researchers, who generally are employed by institutions, and
who busy themselves making characterizations about everything, and children
are of course a major topic. But characterization is just one of the
facets of social science, is it not?
However, I definitely need to read the article to
>move any further.
I understand. Hopefully we will be able to continue this discussion. I
find many of the themes in the Carol Lee series very valuable to think and
talk about. I really appreciate your remarks.
What do you think?
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST