[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[xmca] Imitation and Creativity
Final examinations are always a little chastening--for all concerned. One by one the students have to get up and teach for about fifteen minutes, with the rest of us role playing third, fourth, fifth or sixth graders (and me playing an obstreperous little boy called Seokdae, who is always first with the wrong answer).
It's traumatic for the kids because of course it's a final exam. But it's traumatic for me too, because many of my students learn to teach by imitation. Some of what I see I do recognize rather too well, and I some of what I recognize I do not particularly like.
a) I babble constantly when I teach. I get attention with very STRONG down intonation, I give information with a kind of exaggerated UP on the theme and DOWN on the rheme, and I always check with simple wh-questions that are upwardly intoned (e.g. "Who?")
b) I never look at what I am actually writing on the whiteboard (because I am talking to the class while I am doing it) so the result is something that looks a little like action painting, not exactly symbolic or even indexical (I have seen students in the back row trying to copy it into their notebooks).
c) I tend to "rush" activities, because of course my role is to present and critique them, not to actually do them. For example, I tend to set up pairs of students to do a role play or a game and then just as they start doing it, I stop and move on to the next point on the agenda. And unfortunately some of my students do the same kind of thing.
Vygotsky DOES say that "imitation" provides the practical content of the "next zone of development" or the "proximal zone of development". But of course he adds the rider that this is "imitation in the broadest sense", just as when he talks about whether play fulfills the needs of a child he demands that we interpret "need" as whatever motivates the child to activity, and the question of whether play fullfills the child's needs simply vanishes.
So for example Vygotsky says that when the child is doing a homework problem at his desk in his bedroom by remembering an example that the teacher did at the chalk board the previous day, the child is imitating. Similarly, the children in Josefina Schif's MA thesis work are imitating when they get HIGHER scores on test items involving completing sentences using concepts such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, revolution, civil war, and the construction of a planned economy than on test items involving why Kolya fell off his bicycle.
The problem I have with BOTH of these examples is really the SAME problem I have with the physiological approach to psychology: where does NEW knowledge come from? Specifically, where does CREATIVE imitation come from? More specifically still, how do I get the kids to use SOME of what I do in class, but to use it better than I can?
It seems to me that it does not come, exclusively or even essentially, from any untapped potential somewhere in the brain tissue, nor from any outward assistance in the sociocultural environment. Sometimes it does not come at all.
But when it does come, it comes from the conscious realization that imitation is always imperfect. At first this imperfection in the imitation is non-deliberate, but with conscious realization it can become quite intentional.
Creativity is, then, nothing less than deliberate, intentional, VOLITIONAL error. But perhaps it is an error to say that it is nothing MORE than this, because ultimately the model being imitated can itself be criticized and recreated in a new and different way.
Of course it is true (and it is trite) to say that something is going on in the brain tissue when my students become aware that they are not imitating correctly and when they realize that not everything I do is worth imitating. There is also something going on in the eyes and the ears and muscle tissues as well, and not all of it is irrelevant to the issue of imitation or even to the issue of the deliberate mastery of error.
Similarly, it is true (and trite) to say that imitation is socially and culturally reproductive, and that a system of education that is founded on imitating models and punishing errors cannot ever lead to any form of social progress. That assumes that imitation is perfect, and the punishment is an effective deterrent to every form of creativity, from unconscious to critical to deliberate and destructive creativity.
Not so. The critical, nay, TRAUMATIC moment of every final examination I give is when I find an error that I find worth imitating and can show it to the class. One thing almost everybody does during finals is that when they have to use a very long sentence (e.g. "The student who has the most cards will win the game") they use a COUNTING intonation, counting out the words with a rising intonation on each word except the last.
I used to punish this severely, because I recognized that it was an imitation of a sentence that I have used and should NOT use (it is not elementary school English at all). But I now realize that it's quite a normal response to a new grammatical structure, and it does clearly show both the speaker and the hearer that all the parts (articles, prepositions, and even verb inflections) are present and accounted for. It's not good intonation; but it's the groundwork for it; it is the student letting go of my intonation in order to get a good grip on my grammar.
Salman Rushdie asks, in the "Satanic Verses", how newness comes into this old world. I think the answer is right there in his book (and also, on a good day and no thanks to me, in my class). Mistakes are not always a mistake.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
--- On Fri, 12/24/10, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] How can we reply to this...
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Friday, December 24, 2010, 6:25 AM
Of course physiology has its place in psychology. It's only that at the moment, focus on physiology is amost killing psychology. But we should mention, perhaps, that Vygotsky's close comrade-in-arms and fellow cultural pscyhologist, A R Luria, was one of the founders of modern neuroscience and the two of them attended lectures in medicine at the same time as they were teaching and researching psychology! According to Vygotsky, consciousness is the mediation between behaviour and physiology. But the problem is always how to investigate it and how is it formed and developed.
There are a lot of people on this list who would love to wax lyrical on creativity, Ivo, so I hesitate to answer. But being Christmas, maybe others are busy elsewhere!
As I understand it, Vygotsky gave a very low value to both imitation and reflex as methods of acquiring new behaviours. In reality most of the time children have to *invent* new forms of behaviour. Of course, cultural communities arrange for it that children re-invent culturally-approved practices. But it is always a species of invention. Children find themselves in a situation where they have to figure out how to satisfy their burgeoning needs. Eventually they find the solution which is made available to them in their social position. But they don't always discover the same practice. Well, hardly ever really. And I guess the invention of new solutions to the problem of making a life in always slightly different circumstances leads to cultural difference, and after 500 generations it's no wonder that diversification is the result.
I heard a program about the disappearance of the Indigenous languages here in Australia, and they spoke of a case where a dozen different languages have been "let go" and the people who used to speak them now speak, not English, but another Indigenous language. Cases of "inventing" new common cultural practices of kinship and mythology under conditions of gradual genocide and the forcing of culturally diverse people into shared reservations and so on, has long ago been reported. So when necessary people can adapt and even undiversify in order to survive under new conditions.
But others should speak on this topic. David? Vera? Peter? ...
Andy
Ivo Banaco wrote:
> Yes, it makes sense. I laugh when you say that "You don't need to delve into the depths of the body to find this". Yes, I see your point, but this delve into the depths of the body have some meaning to this investigation. It is not a pre-modern, mystic thing, it can add a lot, I think, to the understanding of activity (or the why we act the way we do). But this a whole new discussion. But "This participation in common activity is the secret to communication across cultural difference" it's a wonderful diversity in communion that is not too often emphasized.
> In this context how would you define creativity as a function of cultural development? How can we explain that different cultures exists in the first place, or that different practices evolve over time and others don't, etc.?
>
> Ivo
>
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> I'll take a look at that talk tomorrow if I can. But let me
> respond to what you have said here.
>
> On the one hand we are co-temporal with culture. How did we get
> the anatomy to speak and use tools, except that for millions years
> we did so without adequate "equipment"? But this does not mean we
> are "only" culture. Cultural practices always build artefacts out
> of nature-given material, according to its laws. To be an artefact
> is always to be subject to the laws of nature. There is no
> dichotomy between nature and nurture, material and ideal. In both
> cases, the categories fully overlap.
>
> But on the other hand, the "postmodern" idea of an absolute
> noncommunication given cultural different is an absurd lie. The
> fact is that despite cultural difference, people always manage to
> work together, live in the same states under the same governments,
> exchanging products and collaborating in shared products. This
> participation in common activity is the secret to communication
> across cultural difference. You don't need to delve into the
> depths of the body to find this. Wave after wave of migration
> across the world has seen to it.
>
> Of course we do have a lot in common in our physiology, but how
> far that goes is hard to tell. Practice, and the undertsanding of
> that practice, is the way to resovle these mysteries.
>
> Make sense?
> Andy
>
> Ivo Banaco wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for this piece. First I have to say that I've been
> reading your book "An interdisciplinary theory of activity"
> which is been a wonderful intellectual journey for me. Thank
> you and congratulations!
>
> You said Andy that "People interact with the world through
> culture, and there were no human beings before culture, and no
> children born into a culture-free world". And as an
> ontological premise I would say that if culture is here from
> the start so are We. We exist, interact and that is culture.
> So there is no culture prior to human beings, nor human beings
> prior to culture, but both simultaneously. And for me this is
> important, because We neither become cultural or individualist
> reductionists. My worries are centered in the way We, within
> the cultural historical approach could avoid the postmodern
> trap of extreme cultural relativism. What I find in Gendlin's
> approach is a way to "rescue the human being" from 3rd person
> artifacts, respecting at the same time his cultural and
> historical structure. How can we explain otherwise cultural
> evolution in the lasts couple of centuries or how can we
> explain creativity if we cannot rescue the human being, our
> first person experiences and processes? In a Gendlin's small
> text that I would love you to comment called "On the new
> epistemology"
> (http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/docs/gol_2173.html) he says
> "In the regular notion, human beings have lost their instincts
> and are just culture products. It's true when you look at
> human beings across cultures, we don't share anything like as
> much as any animal species. Any given species of animals sleep
> the same, have intercourse the same, eat the same things. We
> have been varied and complexified, elaborated, made more
> intricate and in different ways. We certainly have cultural
> routines. This whole talk [this is in a conference] is going
> on in a cultural routine; otherwise you wouldn't sit there and
> let me talk nonstop at you. But the body starts out already as
> tissue with a great deal of internal organization and then
> becomes an animal , in a evolutionary way of talking, in which
> tissue processes are organized so the animal can move around
> and go after something, and then it becomes culturally human."
>
> You see, the way of looking at culture is different, the
> emphasis on human beings as creators and molded at the same
> time by culture is the main point here. In what degree we
> "exceed culture" or move the culture forward?
>
> Ivo
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
> Ivo,
> Never having heard of Gendlin I consulted WIkipedia, at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Gendlin and on this slender
> basis I could venture a few comments.
>
> That concepts are ways of understanding the world, rather than
> things existing in the world is hardly news. You would have
> to go
> back 500 years to find a "philosopher" to argue against
> this. The
> question is where you go with this.
>
> The example Wikipedia gives is gravity. Gendlin takes the
> observation "things fall" to be the basis of all concepts of
> "gravity" and says that this is the basis for gravity and the
> various historically arising theories of gravity, which
> modify the
> concept of gravity. Thus "Gendlin insists that 'gravity' is a
> concept and that concepts can't make anything fall. Instead of
> saying that gravity causes things to fall, it would be more
> accurate to say that things falling cause [the different
> concepts
> of] gravity. Interaction with the world is prior to
> concepts about
> the world."
>
> The thing is that more recent theories of gravity do not arise
> from the observation that things fall, but rather from much
> more
> developed systems of activity which have become possible
> only in
> recent times. Such theories co-exist with mundane concepts of
> gravity, just as developed scientific forms of activity
> co-exist
> with mundane forms of activity. So we would say it is not the
> _passive observation_ that things fall which underlies all
> concepts of gravity, but rather the historically and culturally
> developing _forms of activity_ which continuously cause the
> idea
> of gravity to be recast in new theories. "Interaction with the
> world is prior to concepts about the world" means "culture is
> prior to concepts about the world." People interact with
> the world
> through culture, and there were no human beings before culture,
> and no children born into a culture-free world.
>
> Vygotsky showed in his study of ontogenesis that the
> nature-given
> mental functions are recast and recombined in new Gestalten
> under
> the influence of participation in the social activity
> around them.
> Their minds are restructured, but still made up from the same
> nature-given functional units at base. If I have this wrong,
> others will correct me. I am not a child psychologist or even a
> psychologist of childhood. But I think this gives an opening to
> see how Gendlin's interesting innovations into therapy work.
> Another example, according to Vygotsky, "the subconscious"
> exists,
> but it is a construct which arises only in the course of later
> development. It does not - as it seems - preexist conscious
> awareness. It's a bit analogous to inner speech, which
> onotgenetically arises on the basis of speaking aloud. Even
> though
> everyone was quiet and nonetheless intelligent before they ever
> spoke, both onto- and phylo-genetically. It seems to me that
> Gendlin may well have a good technique for therapy, but that
> doesn't mean that the ontology and epistemology and theory
> of mind
> by means of which he systematises his understanding of it
> stands
> up to criticism.
>
> Does that make any sense to you Ivo?
> Andy
>
>
> Ivo Banaco wrote:
>
> Hi Michael and all,
>
> Thank you for your interest and quick reply. I am
> studying in
> Lisbon,
> Portugal in ISPA (Higher *Institute of Applied
> Psychology). I
> have a
> background in Economics (my undergraduate studies and
> master
> degree is in
> Economics) but I did not quite fit in the mainstream way of
> looking for
> economic issues. My long time interest in Psychology
> drove me
> to study on my
> own all that kept my attention in a rather random way.
> Discovering Vygotsky
> was like discovering a golden mine that could start to
> structure my thoughts
> about some issues, namely the relationship between mind,
> behaviour,
> artifacts, economic and cultural structures, and how
> can all
> fit in some
> dynamic Whole. *
> *
> *
> *This quote about Gendlin came under a certain
> psychological
> tradition
> related to the humanistic wave of Carl Rogers. Eugene
> Gendlin
> was a close
> collaborator of Rogers and then carried forward his own
> original thought,
> what can be called a existential humanistic and
> experiential
> psychology. His
> first book was "Experiencing and the Creation of
> Meaning" *
> http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3
> <http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3
> <http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3>>
> where
> he talks about constructs like felt sense, or edge of
> awareness, where
> language emerges from nonlanguage, from the intricacy
> of the
> bodily felt
> felt meaning.
>
> So in a sense he gives emphasis to experience and
> interaction
> first and
> before culture. It's a living thing that is formed first,
> which is pre
> cultural, cultural and more complex than culture. He
> says that
> the body, the
> human body is always more than any define form, from the
> start. He tries to
> find a 1st person science, that cannot be reducible to
> neuroscience,
> economics, culture. He points directly to experience, the
> bodily felt
> experience which allows human to act in the first place. So
> here the unit of
> analysis is the continuous experiencing.
>
> I don't know if this helps to put Gendlin in context. My
> question is how can
> we avoid to be reductionist approaching the cultural
> dimension
> of the human
> being, that is not reducing humans to culture and
> vice-versa.
>
> Ivo
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:53 PM, mike cole
> <lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> Ivo--
>
> Where are you studying? gmail is such a general
> address!!
>
> If you have no existential doubts or gordian knots,
> start
> to get concerned
> about your state of mind. Perfectly normal and healthy.
> Existential
> uncertainty seems the lot of human kind.
>
> Without knowing a lot more, I can offer no
> interpretation,
> let alone a
> reply, to Gendlin's statement about big things and
> little
> things. Is
> reference being made to neuroscientific 50 millisecond
> little things and
> 100 millisecond big things?
>
> In light of issues discussed here (feel free to
> buzz the
> past decade or so
> in the archives for context) where do this fit?
>
> mike
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Ivo Banaco
> <ibanaco@gmail.com <mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com <mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> Dear xmcaonaughts,
>
>
>
> As a new kid on the block, recently researching in
> Cultural Psychology and
> wanting to do my Phd thesis in this area, I
> still have
> "existential doubts"
> and big gordian knots. Having read different
> kinds of
> literature in
> different traditions in Psychology I still have
> troubles in replying to
> sentences like this by the existential
> philosopher and
> psychologist Eugene
> Gendlin:
>
>
> "Any little thing, any big thing is precultural,
> because it is tissues and
> it is animal life, and it's culture and it's also
> after culture, more
> complicated than culture. The body is this much
> more
> complex, much more
> intricate system from the start."
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ivo Banaco
>
> PS: I wish you all a merry Christmas and a
> great 2011.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:03 AM, mike cole
> <lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> Several of the articles on show below appear of
> interest to various
> xmcaonaughts.
> mike
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Teachers College Record
> <no-reply@tcrecord.org
> <mailto:no-reply@tcrecord.org> <mailto:no-reply@tcrecord.org
> <mailto:no-reply@tcrecord.org>>>
> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM
> Subject: Transitioning From an Innovative
> Elementary to a Conventional
> High
> School
> To: Recipient <mcole@ucsd.edu
> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu
> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>>
>
>
> [image: Title]
> [image: Subscribe Today]
> <http://www.tcrecord.org/Subscriptions.asp>
> [image: transparent 13]
> Freely-Available This Week
> Articles
> Smuggling Authentic Learning Into the School
> Context: Transitioning From
> an
> Innovative Elementary to a Conventional High
> School<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15227>
> by Renée DePalma, Eugene Matusov & Mark Smith
> Analyzing the discourse of eighth-grade
> graduates
> from an innovative
> elementary school as they transition to
> conventional high schools
> revealed
> distinct response patterns characterizing
> concurrent projects of
> self-actualization and institutional
> achievement.
> Our analysis suggests
> that
> a certain critical ambivalence toward
> credentialism and competition can
> be
> part of a healthy strategy for school success,
> particularly for those
> from
> marginalized groups who do not wholly buy
> into the
> (predominantly White
> and
> middle-class) historically rooted traditions of
> conventional schooling.
>
> Designing Transparent Teacher Evaluation: The
> Role of Oversight Panels
> for
> Professional Accountability<
> http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15053>
> by Jennifer Goldstein
> This article explores a policy intended to
> improve the quality of
> teaching
> by improving the quality of teacher
> evaluation. It
> examines a Peer
> Assistance and Review (PAR) program, and
> specifically one aspect of the
> program-its oversight panel-asking how an
> oversight panel alters the
> practice of teacher evaluation. The core
> argument
> of the article is that
> oversight panels have the potential to
> fundamentally alter the
> transparency
> of the teacher evaluation process and, in turn,
> the nature of
> accountability.
>
>
> Book Reviews
> Multiliteracies in Motion: Current Theory and
> Practice<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16226>
> by David R. Cole and Darren Lee Pullen (eds.)
> reviewed by William Kist
> ------------------------------
> Citizenship Education and Social
> Development in
> Zambia<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16227>
> by Ali A. Abdi, Edward Shizha, and Lee
> Ellis (eds.)
> reviewed by Monisha Bajaj
> ------------------------------
> Persuading Fred: An essay review of recent
> books
> by Stanley Fish, Louis
> Menand, and Martha
> Nussbaum<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16228>
> by
> reviewed by James Donald
> ------------------------------
> Someone Has to Fail: The Zero-Sum Game of
> Public
> Schooling<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16229>
> by David F. Labaree
> reviewed by Floyd M. Hammack
>
> <http://www.tcrecord.org/voice.asp>
> Henry Braun discusses his paper,
> co-authored with
> Irwin Kirsch and
> Kentaro
> Yamamoto, "An Experimental Study of the
> Effects of
> Monetary Incentives on
> Performance on the 12th-Grade NAEP Reading
> Assessment."<http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16008>
> Commentaries
> In Praise of Slow Reading<
> http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16238>
> by Thomas Newkirk
> This commentary argues against the high
> valuation
> schools place on
> reading
> speed, particularly on high sakes tests
> like the
> SAT. In penalizing
> slower
> readers, these and other tests put at a
> disadvantage students who
> approach
> their reading in a deliberate and thorough way.
> The ideal should not be
> speed but the *tiempo guisto*, the pace at
> which
> we are most attentive
> and
> effective-and this pace will vary depending
> on the
> individual and the
> task.
> 2010 NSSE Yearbooks and Call for Proposals
> for Future
> Yearbooks<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16120>
> by
> The editors of the Teachers College Record
> announce the yearbook topics
> for
> 2010 and issue a call for new proposals.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please
> browse to:
> https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520
> <https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520>
> <https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520
> <https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520>>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
__________________________________________
_____
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