Dear Bill, et al,|
I think I appreciate your point Bill, and have also appreciated Michael raising the issues he has raised.
I just have to quickly comment on the concrete versus "philosophical path". I think that anyone advocating for disrupting hegemony is in part marginalized automatically by the fact that the "concrete" is more likely to include reified artifacts of the dominant ideology. So staying in the "concrete" arguably means valuing the reified dominant ideology over any alternatives and considering alternatives can always be seen as "abstract" or "philosophical" or "non-concrete" precisely because reified artifacts reflect the cultural-historical-political status quo one may seek to challenge.
My, no doubt inflation-ridden, two cents. Not meaning/intending to push the analysis of the notes and the rich discussion of what was observed and noted into a more ideological discussion at this juncture, however. ;-) I just wanted to weigh in one quick perspective from the sidelines.
Bill Barowy wrote:
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 possible. bb 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