Re: FYI - Bramble House is ME, Diane Hodges, HI!

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

nice to "see you" Diane
mike


On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:21:24 -0500, Bramble House <info@bramblehouse.net> wrote:
> I just saw my message and realized no one will know what the hell Bramble
> House is... it's a store I run, own, whatever, in a little village here in
> Quebec, where I sell UK products to the minority of UK ex-pats who live
> here... ever supplying the minority with their needs, I reckon. Ha.
> 
> Cheers ya.
> 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: "Bramble House" <info@bramblehouse.net>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: math for reproduction and domination
> 
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>