[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] Re: How are "goals" related to "committments"?

A few further thoughts from Mike's article. On the last 2 pages Mike
explores Bourdieu's notion of habitus and Schweder's notion of understanding
practices as a series of MORALLY enforcable conceptual schemes as capturing
the notion of "structuration" [Giddens] These various notions of
practice-in-contexts integrate past experience and a matrix of "perceptions"
"apperceptions" and "actions" which make possible multiple POTENTIAL
RESPONSES to the world.
This matrix is IMPLICIT and is "usually" the unexamined background
assumptions that orient us as wayfarers to move and operate within the
world as "structured ways of life"
Taylor's project is to take this basic insight, shared with Bourdieau and
Schweder, and amplify the notion of "committments" as particular ethical
"ways of life".  Taylor's book "Sources of the Self" makes clear there are
multiple "ways of life" [habitus?] that co-exist in a particular historical
moment and what is central [for Taylor] is the depth of committment to a way
of life [an ethical stance] that orientes the person to dwelling in the

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike and others
> Mike, reflecting on your comment that the relevant order of context [as
> weaving] for analysis depends crucially on the particular tools through
> which one interacts with the world AND this tool use depends crucially on
> the GOALS and other constraints on action withIN the permeable changing
> events of life.  Mike, if one substitutes the word "committments" for the
> term "goals" does this change the meaning you are pointing towards?
> The reason I'm asking this question is because of where Charles Taylor
> locates "committment" within his particular notion of "context" as "ways of
> life".  As I read Taylor, he is pointing to ETHICS [how we "should" proceed]
> as centrally ABOUT committments.  These committments emerge wiithin
> HISTORICALLY constituted ways of life and it is these "shared" committments
> [which can be implicit, not explicit] as "horizons of understanding" which
> give meaning to practices, events, conduct, etc.  I didn't add the term
> "situation" to that list because as I'm reading your article "situation" can
> be read to include "committments" and "ways of life" withIN "situations".
> These committments [within horizons of understanding] can be read as
> contexts that "surround" in the way Taylor is suggesting Brandom does not go
> far enough in locating the  PARTICULAR ethical committment of "giving and
> asking for reasons" as a particular historically embedded language game
> which structures our practices and events [and our institutions]
> However, is it also possible to locate historically constituted ETHICAL
> "committments" as  weaving [context] that explores the emergence of
> committments within the permeable changing events of life.  The emergence of
> "committments" in the day to day intersubjective dialogical, INTRA-weavings
> [not INTER-weavings which suggest the committments PRE-exist].
> I don't presume to know how context/surrounds" and context/weaves are
> related but the place of "goals"/"committments" seems to relevant aspects of
> the "situation"/"way of life".
> Larry
xmca mailing list