Dear Andy-
I was thinking on your words, "I suppose this means that we all start with a
number things we pick up from living in the same capitalist world: the
Zeitgeist, the world market, the dominant social forces and realities, which
are the basis of "ideology". Although we all look at the world from
different viewpoints, we all look at the same world, with its characteristic
mirages and illusions."
This reminds me a legend about blind people describing an elephant. However,
in this legend what is shared is material body of the elephant while "ideal"
perceptions are different depending on a relative position of a blind person
touching the elephant. According to Andy's metaphor (in my understanding),
people seem to "touch" not on their material world but also (hegemonic?)
ideology. My first reaction was to object Andy's metaphor because usually
"boundary object" (Lee Star) is considered to be material rather than ideal
as ideology is. But then, I started thinking that ideology has huge material
aspect (e.g., flags, texts, movies). I remember that Jay developed a very
good point about materiality of ideology (especially hegemonic ideology) in
his book "Textual politics". Ideology is not only material but also involves
many practices (e.g., patriotic rituals). So, thanks, Andy, for a new
metaphor.
What do you think?
Eugene
_____
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:50 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
Well, yet again I need to be more precise, don't I.
I suppose what I mean it that, on one end, no two people see the world just
the same way, and at the other we all share the "illusion" that money has
value. I suppose this means that we all start with a number things we pick
up from living in the same capitalist world: the Zeitgeist, the world
market, the dominant social forces and realities, which are the basis of
"ideology". Although we all look at the world from different viewpoints, we
all look at the same world, with its characteristic mirages and illusions.
It could be said that someone looking at it from a "privileged" position is
more able to free themselves from what is illusory, in a better position to
be critical at least in thought if not in action.
Andy
At 08:26 PM 30/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Andy
It will be interesting to check/test your (and Victors?) hypothesis about
*all* member of bourgeois society& sharing& the same illusions. I personally
doubt that members of upper class (old moneys) would agree with I believe if
you put an effort into anything, you can get ahead&(Strauss, 1992, p. 202)
But it will be nice to check that. I wish somebody made a study like Claudia
Strauss did with members of working, middle, and upper class people.
What do you think?
Eugene
_____
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:39 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
Here we come back to what someone (Victor?) said about *all* members of
bourgeois society, whatever class, sharing in the first place, the same
illusions. Class consciousness and solidarity are attitudes I think which
have to be learnt through definite kinds of experience; such experiences are
not to be had in the home, generally are not conveyed in TV; perhaps the
first experiences are in gang-like interactions at school?
Andy
At 07:23 PM 30/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Andy, I think you are right on the target talking about, what Jim Gee
calls, projective identity. The question that I have is how and why working
class people participate in middle-class cultural model(or way of talking).
It is not the case that working class people accept any middle class
cultural modelthat available via TV or other popular media. Although I do
not have much data about that but I doubt that many working class people
would buy middle class cultural model of child fostering based on constantly
giving kids choices. So the question is why some working class people
project themselves in self-actualizationmiddle-class cultural model but not
in child-rearing through choice-makingmiddle-class cultural model. I do not
think the preference of working class people in adapting middle-class models
can be explained simply by watching TV. Any ideas?
What do you think?
Eugene
_____
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 6:38 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
We could put this together with Jim Gee's observations about play. People
are growing up acting out characters that they see on TV. They believe that
they can make their own character. But this turns out to be a frustrated
experience; they only get to play Doug Heffernan. ... Andy
Claudias study shows that also working class men widely hold this
self-actualizationcultural model they do and cannot enact it (but rather
they act out of necessity-based being a breadwinnercultural model). Victor
or anybody else, can you explain what makes proliferation of cultural
modelsthat people deeply hold but cant enact, please?
Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST