The problem with "beginnings" is well addressed in the various works
of Derrida, among others, the essay on the Pharmakon, which you find
somewhere in Dissemination or in Margins of Philosophy. Fatherless
beginnings, Michael
On 28-Jun-07, at 9:22 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
It seems to me that there are two errors to be avoided. One is to
'ontologize' experts and novices, as though they are natural
categories. The
other is to 'nominalize' them, as though 'expert' and 'novice' are
merely
labels we attach to people arbitrarily.
Can you say more about how you employ 'expertise' and 'novice'
(analytically) to characterize the resources drawn upon in interaction
without simply borrowing from folk psychology?
Martin
On 6/28/07 10:22 AM, "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
> Martin,
> I see it this way: "expertise" and "novice" are resources people in
> actual practice mobilize to constitute expertise and novice-hood....
> Otherwise you have a deterministic model of human action, and this
> does not get us any further than reified folk psychology. :-) Michael
>
>
> On 28-Jun-07, at 7:33 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Against my best intentions I'm going to let myself be drawn into the
> discussion of experts and novices. You have said:
>
> On 6/28/07 8:24 AM, "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
>> This, then,
>> makes the ontological opposition of THE expert and THE novice highly
>> questionable.
>
> and Dale has said:
>
>> The determination of whether a knowledge source is an "expert," a
>> "nerd," or a "mad scientist" is largely a rhetorical one.
>
> I would agree with both characterizations. Identification of expert
> and
> novice is possible only within the normative practices of a
> community. Such
> identifications can be and are contested. Maintaining such an identity
> requires ongoing work, both material and rhetorical. But none of this
> means
> that 'experts' and 'novices' don't exist. It means they exist within
> specific historical and cultural conditions, and that as these
> conditions
> change identifications of expertize and noviciate-ness will shift. And
> presumably what count as 'frailties' and 'flaws' are equally
> defined by
> contingent practices. (Think of the way NCLB diagnoses 'flawed'
> children and
> schools.) All this is no surprise to a sociocultural perspective, I
> think.
>
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Jun 28 09:39 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 01 2007 - 00:30:04 PDT