Re: math for reproduction and domination

["Peg Griffin" <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>]

Hi, Michael,
In your paper in the journal that the group discussed, I was interested by
your analysis of identity and I was also interested in the students,
teacher, and interns as objective subjects of science and in science as
their subjective object but I found that hard to get at.   Your responses to
my queries supported my supposition that "there's more to it than that" and
that any given publication is a part of what is needed.  And  I'm looking
forward to knowing more about your work.

I think that what you describe as "particulars of the historical situation
of the activity system" of necessity include the cultural historical domains
like science and mathematics that are involved in them.  In my view, such
domains are not asocial nor are they immune from being weapons for and of
power and inequity.

Because I think in terms of "emergent" and "dialectic," I don't separate
from the teachers, kids, and the more weaponed others making the institution
of schooling (not 'of education').   I don't see powerlessness and
unidirectionality.  So, I can't understand what it would take to mean/say
first graders are put through something, nor to be able to identify intent
for the putting through.  I can see teachers and kids (and me) making
foundations for sometimes good and sometimes bad mathematics and citizenry,
depending on what they have and what they do.

Peg


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: math for reproduction and domination


> Hi Bill,
> I am not one of those editors who imposes his/her view of the world on
> others. I recognize the work in itself, even though I might disagree
> with the content. You notice that my own paper dealt with the
> production and reproduction of identity in the context of urban
> science, and the fragility of "success" to be and become a student or
> teacher.
> You may not be interested in this kind of trouble making, but in this
> you make a choice as to the nature of the society you live in. I think
> a dose of social analysis of the kind Dorothy Smith, who argues for a
> feminist sociology, is required to interrogate our ideologies so that
> we can bring about  a rupture. Bourdieu, too, asks us, as social
> analysts, to break with the gaze through radical analysis of our own
> presuppositions.
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> On 11-Nov-04, at 8:52 AM, Bill Barowy wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 11 November 2004 11:24 am, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> >> historical situation of the activity system. You seem to advocate that
> >> we can understand children's and their teachers' actions just by
> >> looking at a classroom.
> >
> > I just can't believe YOU edited MY paper in MCA and can still make
> > that claim!
> > I'm going to step back and look at our own conversation.  This is not
> > the
> > kind of troublemaking i'm interested in.
> >
> > bb
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>