[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: math for reproduction and domination

What I meant was, I'm simply trying to cook some notes, and while that does 
not preclude a cultural historical analysis at some  later time, the analysis 
at this moment centers on some kids learning some math.  The analysis will 
surely and eventually broaden, as yrjo's expansive methodolgy demands.  Peg's 
questions concerning NCTM content has already been moving things toward 
cultural historical analysis.

And then, I have the impression of some history of xmca conversations going 
down the dialectical philosophical path and then, paradoxically, failing to 
rise back up again to the concrete.  I'd like to stay concrete as long as 


On Thursday 11 November 2004 12:19 pm, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> 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