Re: math for reproduction and domination

["Bramble House" <info@bramblehouse.net>]

Hi all.
It's been a while (like, years?) since I've posted anything; partly because
I've not had a lot to contribute, and partly (I found out recently, and
thanks again Bruce for fixing that) because my email addresses were
confused... but I am thoroughly and quite completely compelled to add a
smattering of applause here to Michael and Kevin for their sweet sounds of
dissension (or as bb notes, this "trouble-making" ...!)

*quick kisses to little-b bill, I've always loved your enthusiasm and keen
sense of cool, fair and funny gender play, and nearly feminist
sensibility...*

Michael writes: "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."

...and then Kevin follows up with:
"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."

This reminds me of footnoting "hegemony" in my lone article in MCA, and
feeling as if I might be explaining polar ice caps to desert nomads. Hee
hee. I kid.

I just have to admit that this language of ideology and these references to
Dorothy Smith, eeeeeeeeeh, ... well, it all just makes me WET! :) Especially
Kevin's "reified artifacts of the dominant ideology..." Oooooh. Yesh. Yesh.
LOVE it.

Thanks guys. Really. This sort of thing almost makes me wish I were back in
the thick of it all.

By the way, hey Jay. You're still rocking all the boats. Good on you.

Cheers y'all.
little-d diane

Diane Hodges

La Maison Bramble House
19 Valois Bay Avenue
Pointe Claire, QC H9R 4B4
Canada

Tel: (514) 630-6363
Fax: (514) 344-2994
www.bramblehouse.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 12:19 PM
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>