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

Re: [xmca] Cultural memory



Larry, I don't know where you are going here, but I am sure that by introducing about 20 other questions I would not succeed in persuading my protagonist of the value of using the concept of mediation to understand cultural memory. I would just have 20 new problems. I think it is more a question of narrowing things down to the one decisive question. And I think the problem of the difference between the thought of 2 thalers and the actual two thalers and the 2 thalers in my pocket being money, was itself actually a different question, and the problem of the onotology of concepts is altogether another very complex question again.

Andy

Larry Purss wrote:
Andy
I'll jump in with my 2 thalers worth:
Let's begin with, - Concepts are "real" and have material existence [in the sense that concepts are artefacts including genres and designed tools] Concepts as the general category. -Add in "agency" as "that" which exerts an influence [constitutes??] us through our expressions. -Our expressions are actualized within conceptual "spaces" or "moments" [artefacts, genres, texts, traditions.] -Expressions are actions [interactions??] operationalized within activity processes of shared coordinated projects. Now for a metaphor of the body with distinct perceptual systems [sight hearing touch etc]. From a Gestalt perspective We do not have 5 distinct inputs that then interweave and consolidate into "consciousness" The Gestalt is PRIMARY and the 5 senses all confirm the gestalt. If only one sense registers the phenomena it is experienced as delusional. GESTALT IS PRIMARY Is any "body" listening? Andy in the same way that the person as body "perceives" not the eye or the ear or the skin, concepts are gestalten. Concepts [as material] are metaphorical "bodies" of perceiving. These concepts are expressed within artefacts [designed structures and texts] and the concept "imbues" [not sure of that word] the activity, actions, and operations. Mediation operates within conceptual gestalts. Andy I'm probably still not grasping where you are pointing and have garbled this but I am attempting to grasp "concepts" [through your mediation :-} Now the struggle I have within this conceptual gestalt is the place of "chiasmic intertwining" which is a phenomena that "should" be included in "this" conceptual universe. [in my opinion] Chiasmic refers to binocular vision where left eye and right eye do not see two distinct images which are then interconnected or orchestrated or coordinated. The two sources express a single gestalt perception "in depth" that is new and novel and trans*formative. Not a dialectic, not a tension, but a novel gestalt expression Andy, this is NOT the "master-bondsman" form of intersubjectivity which posits conflict, dialectic, and overcoming and in the overcoming "subjectivity develops" That dialectical tension is a phenomena that may also be crucial, but I'm pointing to another form of intersubjectivity which in continental philosophy is referred to as "witnessing". This is the language of "calling and response" [or turning away from the calling] Witnessing as a particular kind of action [of "intersubjectivity"] that in*forms a particular kind of "subjectivity" Witnessing as a term is pointing to the "receptive" aspect of "hearing" the others calll. It does not use the language of "seeing" the others signal or gesture [as understanding, interpretation, reflective detachment from the phenomena] This is a particular type of action that is often referred to archetypically as the "mother-infant" constellation. To me this archetype is a metaphor of the fundamental re-cognition of human vulnerability and suffering and our response to this need as motivated to move towards another [or ward off the other if too vulnerable] Witnessing as chiasmic intertwining [as explored in Shotter's paper] is an aspect of our humaness that must also be mediated within conceptual gestalts This does not question other fundamental needs such as "orientation" and "exploration" but I wonder if "vulnerability and suffering" and "chiasmic intertwining" are also fundamental and need a home in our conceptual socio-cultural formations. I have Haydi in mind as I write this and want to confirm the traditions of looking at domination and nondomination, being colonized BY THE OTHER [master bondsman], becoming subjected to the other, material labour practices and class formations which are as "real" and "actual" as chiasmic intertwining and must be responded to with struggles for social justice. However I do wonder if we struggle and "see" [observe] the injustices without our being "heard" in our "sayings" [chiasmic intertwining] then a vital aspect of trans*formation [which will produce multiple forms of "subjectivities" as expressions of particular conceptual socio-historical moments] will loose their vitality. I'm arguing for "witnessing" as a particular kind of knowlegeability [skill] as an expressive "calling and response" within a conceptual socio-historical moment that is forming [being with or becoming] An AS IF narrative Larry On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    Greg, thank you forwarding my previous post, and obviously no
    offence was taken about being "pegged."

    The difficulty is that my protagonist is very much aware that
    interactions are governed by norms. But they suffer from the
    illusion that it is sufficient for a parent to tell their child
    about the rule, and intervene in their behaviour as required, and
    likewise aficienados to instruct neophytes in any community of
    practice for norms to be established and maintained. This may seem
    a plausible claim, and one which is hard to fault. But it is
    essential to theorise social life as so many dyads, relegating
    mediation to a secondary role, and this in my mind leads to
    libertarian madness. Mike Cole says that he teaches this point by
    suddenly, in the middle of his lecture, breaking into Russian.
    Deborah made a similar point by mentioning how dysfunctional life
    becomes when the technology one is used to is changed to a
    different one. It may be that *changing* the form of mediation (cf
    your cow and vache) is the strongest line of argument.

    About the thought of my dollar bill and the dollar bill in my
    pocket. This comes from Kant actually, and it is posed in terms of
    100 thalers (you can google it), and has been the subject of
    argument ever since, with Hegel weighing in and Slavoj Zizek as
    well. And someone (was it Engels?) making the point: what would
    happen if Kant showed the 100 thalers to someone from a different
    country where thalers were not money? The question is two-fold:
    (1) about the difference between the thought of something and its
    actual existence, even for you privately, and (2) the difference
    between a personal belief and an ideal which is shared by an
    entire community. Quite practically, if I go out the door to go
    into the city thinking I have a 2-dollar coin in my pocket to pay
    the tram fare, it matters very much to me if, when I get on the
    tram and put my hand in my pocket I find that I am mistaken. I
    would not be impressed and nor would the ticket inspector, and
    finally, if I forgot that I was actually in Paris, nor would M.
    Inspector des billets, even if I did find a 2-dollar coin in my
    pocket.

    Andy



    Greg Thompson wrote:

        Didn't mean to cast such aspersions Andy. Maybe I should
        clarify what I was referring to when I pegged you (likely
        erroneously) with the material/language split label.
         You had, a long time ago, posted a question about the
        difference between the dollar bill in your pocket and the
        words "dollar bill" (and please insert appropriate
        denomination here). In that post, you seemed to be suggesting
        that there was a fundamental distinction there. I didn't have
        time, at that moment to respond (and these conversations do
        move fast!), but the question stuck in my head for some time
        b.c. it had such an obvious ring to it but also seemed to be
        missing the way in which those two things are, in fact, really
        quite the same thing (both attain "value" through the social
        and both have similar materiality). I'm happy to say more on
        this point but frankly I'm still a bit confused as to what
        ground you were staking out there and here. Do you recall that
        prior post? I'm sure I could dig it up in my notes but if you
        remember it, then it might be better to get some clarification
        of what you were after rather than my notes on what I thought
        you were after.
         As for your protagonist, it seems like they have that
        wonderful old-fashioned common sense view of language as a
        kind of delivery system where communication is akin to tossing
        a football from one person to another. Your protagonist,
        though, is completely unaware of how the local rules (Aussie
        rules?) affect how the ball can (and will!) be tossed. To
        carry the metaphor through, your protagonist sees the "medium"
        merely as the air through which the ball is flying. Maybe if
        you're at a really high altitude, the ball may travel a little
        differently, but in most cases, it's pretty negligible, says
        the protagonist. The airy metaphor with "phonemes" here is
        apt. With language, your protagonist would likely say "so what
        if you call a cow a 'cow' or a 'vache' - it's still the same
        thing." I say, in many cases (particularly when you look at
        languages that are more divergent), it isn't the same thing at
        all.
         So the question that I keep coming back to is: how do you get
        them to see the role of the rules, particularly when the rules
        are so transparent to so many people (as with language, so too
        with culture). It is hard to argue that these rules matter if
        they appear perfectly transparent (and though it may be
        cliche, the crystalline lens of the eye is a wonderful
        metaphor - transparent but essential for sight - so, what
        would be the language/culture equivalent of having your
        protagonist's "lenses" removed?).
         Love to hear more detail of your prior post about dollar
        bills, as well as how it is coming with your protagonist.
        -greg
         On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden
        <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:

           Well Greg, I recoil in horror from the idea that I am proposing
           "the material/language split"! Of course, I abhor such an idea.
           There is a difference between setting out one's ideas, on one
           hand, and on the other, trying to make a point in such a
        way that
           someone who doesn't share your set of concepts, can see the
        point.
           My protagonist is fully in agreement that language is the
        medium
           in which norms are instantiated, shared and transmitted
        down the
           generations, and does not deny that words are material
        artefacts
           and essentially so. They just don't see the point of including
           *other* artefacts (linguistic or not), other than phonic.

           What I have a problem with is the consistent effort to deny the
           essential existence of concepts, in the world. My protagonist
           would also agree that language and norms are meaningless other
           than in connection with Activity. But it is taken as incidental
           that a sign or word exists before the interaction happens.
        On the
           contrary, I see "cultural memory" as absolutely essential
        to the
           existene of culture. Is it possible to explain a person's,
        or two
           persons' actions, without taking into account how some idea
        came
           into existence before they were born? Is there anything in the
           question of the origin of human society other than two people
           talking to each other?

           And to Tony: yes, C S Peirce is wonderful on this.
        Strangely, even
           though he is the *inventor* of Pragmatism (though he denies
        it), I
           think the movement which followed is not directly inspired
        by his,
           or Dewey's ideas, but rather seems to have grown out of
        conditions
           in the USA. Perhaps "inspired" but not in the same way that
        other
           great figures have had a "following" which interpreted and
           popularised their writings.

           To Larry, what if myu protagonist doesn't see any point in
        mediation?

           Andy

           Greg Thompson wrote:

               Yes, I think I see. I just have a hard time on the split
               between material artifacts and language. You've made that
               argument before and while I understand the distinction
        from an
               emic perpective, I also that it is not very useful when
        making
               arguments about social mediation. The sign is like a
        material
               artifact in that it is of social origins and it allows
        us to
               do something that we might not otherwise be able to do.
                To make this point and as one more suggestion to try with
               your protagonist, why not try the phylogenetic
        argument. Two
               examples work well here. Consider the first use of a
        arrow or
               spear and how that transformed all of mankind not simply by
               making it easier to get food but by creating a diet
        that had
               higher amounts of fat, this created opportunities for the
               human body to evolve (over generations of generations)
        in new
               ways (this is a dialectic argument pushed across a
        great many
               years - the ability to use the tool created new
        evolutionary
               possibilities). Second, consider the use of language as
        a tool
               and how this transforms the hunt such that people can
               coordinate their attacks in much more complex ways
        (although
               it should be said that many animals do pretty complex
               coordinated attacks when hunting, everything from hyenas to
               whales - but it seems like there is something about
        planning
               and foresight that humans can do that dogs can't, but maybe
               this will be another sticking point).
                So the idea is to try the argument of human language vs.
               non-human language. What does having human language
        "get" you
               in some larger sense. It seems critical in order to be
        able to
               do all the things that we do that distinguish us from
        animals,
               no? Buildings, commerce, technology, etc. - all turns
        on our
               ability to use language humanly. And the fact that we
        have the
               available time that we do (as well as the ability to
        instantly
               communicate around the globe - Hello Australia!) also
        makes it
               possible for us to engage with each other in ways that we
               could not otherwise.
                But, as you see, I've offered little in the way of
        material
               artifacts (the arrowhead). This is because I see the
        important
               point being one that involves social mediation and
        certainly
               materials are needed, but it seems to me to be too easy to
               pick apart the material argument because you can always
               substitute other material artifacts. What you can't
        substitute
               is the social nature of the artifacts being used. And
        language
               makes that argument best. Two questions strike the heart of
               the matter here: Who would you be without language?
        Where does
               language come from?

               Curious to hear your thoughts, esp. re: the
        material/language
               split (e.g., isn't language "material" in exactly the
        same way
               as the material artifact? Or is language somehow
        "immaterial"?)
               -greg

                On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Andy Blunden
               <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:

                  Of course you are right Greg that language, whether
        spoken or
                  written, is the mediating artefact par excellence.
        But not
                  everyone recognises words as specifically mediating
               artefacts. The
                  dominant trend of interactionism today regards
        interactions
               as a
                  subject-to-subject dyad, and subsumes within each
        subject their
                  knowledge and facility with language use. So the
        status of
               words
                  as artefacts existing prior to and independently of the
                  interacting individuals is invisible. Indeed, the
        actually
               words
                  do not exisat prior to the interaction, only the "model"
               for them,
                  so to speak. The distinction between a text (i.e.,
        the written
                  word) and speech in this context is just that those
        who do not
                  come from Cultural Psychology or Activity Theory do
        not take
                  speech as a mediating artefact, but rather a
        function of the
                  subject. This allows them to pretend that a culture is
               recreated
                  from scratch every moment as people interact, and
        the subject's
                  memory and continuing language-ability is the only thing
                  guaranteeing the existence of culture, recreating
        appropriate
                  words in the course of evey interaction.

                  I agree with you that the distinction between text and
               speech is
                  entirely secondary but in the context of arguing for the
               very idea
                  of mediating artefacts it becomes important, because my
                  protagonist just doesn't see the point of
        considering mediating
                  artefacts, i.e., material objects with social
        significance, at
                  all. This is what forces me on to the territory of
        "cultural
                  memory." If cultural memory can be plausibly
        explained without
                  recourse to the idea of mediating artefacts, then it
        is just as
                  Deborah suggested, we must agree to disagree, it's
        just a
                  difference of preference.

                  Do you see what I am getting at?
                  Andy

                  Greg Thompson wrote:

                      Seems like you're in a pinch Andy. The way you've
               phrased the
                      problem makes it something of a riddle to me, for a
               number of
                      reasons. How do you pass things by word of mouth but
               not with
                      texts? Unless by "texts" you meant written
        words, in which
                      case, what do you make of oral "texts" passed
        down through
                      generations? There are other sorts of ways in
        which thickly
                      culturally mediated words and practices, similar
        to the
               things
                      that Lucas mentioned, are passed down through the
               generations.
                      So I'm with Lucas that there are lots of examples of
               cultural
                      practices (activities?) that get passed on from
               generation to
                      generation without necessarily having land or
        artifacts
               tied
                      to them. But I also disagree with your
        "protagonist."
                       I'd locate the problem somewhere in the notion that
               words of
                      the mouth are unmediated expressions of
        subjectivity.
               Two big
                      problems here, first, words, second subjectivity.
               Taking the
                      second first (b.c. you seem to suggest that he
        is positing
                      that "words" are unmediated - more on that
        later), if
                      subjectivity has thickly social origins, i.e. is
               mediated by
                      culture and place, then aren't things issuing forth
               going to
                      be mediated by culture. Volosinov and Bakhtin
        provide
               some of
                      the best thinking about this (I'd strongly suggest
               Volosinov's
                      Chapter 3 of Marxism and the Philosophy of
        Language, titled
                      Language and Objective Psychology).
                       For me, Andy, the problem arises when you
        accept your
                      protagonist's claim that language simply and
               straightforwardly
                      brings what is inside out. You skim over
        language as a
                      mediating artifact. I think there's been some talk
               about this
                      lately (some in disagreement with my position),
        but I just
                      don't see how you can leave language out as a
        mediating
               artifact.
                      But maybe you can give some convincing examples?
                      And maybe I'm missing the larger point of your
        position.
                       But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment
        of the
               times
                      as one in which people don't see the mediating
        artifacts
                      around them (I regularly teach about my favorite
        mediating
                      artifact: language!). I think the success of the
               American TV
                      show Survivor provides good evidence of the
               Robinsonade-like
                      fantasies of people today who imagine themselves
        as great
                      heroes surviving in the wild. (and I'd add that
        Volosinov's
                      other well-known book, Freudianism, speaks very
        well to the
                      fantasies of the bourgeousie during times of
        crisis).
                       -greg

                      On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andy Blunden
                      <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
                      <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>> wrote:

                         My point is, Lucas, that I doubt that this can be
               done in fact,
                         without reliance on one kind or another of
        enduring
               artefact. I
                         need a counterexample to be convinced.
                         Andy

                         Lucas Bietti wrote:


                             Dear Andy,

                                      Can these customs be related to
        ways of
                      behaving according to
                             specific social contexts? In a broad sense,
               'politeness' in
                             the pragmatic and discursive sense (to
        say the right
                      things at
                             the right time) could be a way of behaving
               handed down from
                             one generation to the next based on
        imitation and
                       correction
                             by verbal communication among members of the
               same epistemic
                             community. This also depends on what you are
               referring
                      to by
                             'cultural memory'.
                                      Lucas

                                                  On October 15, 2011
        at 1:54 AM Andy Blunden
                      <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
                             <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>>

                      wrote:

                             > I need some help. I am having a
        discussion with a
                      supporter
                             of Robert
                             > Brandom, who was at ISCAR, but is not
        an Activity
                      Theorist.
                             on the
                             > question of cultural memory.
                             >
                             > One of my criticisms of Robert Brandom
        is that he
                      does not
                             theorise any
                             > place for mediation in his theory of
               normativity. He
                             supposes that norms
                             > are transmitted and maintained down the
               generations
                      by word
                             of mouth
                             > (taken to be an unmediated expression of
                      subjectivity), and
                             artefacts
                             > (whether texts, tools, buildings, clothes,
               money) play no
                             essential role
                             > in this.
                             >
                             > I disagree but I cannot persuade my
        protagonist.
                             >
                             > I challenged him to tell me of a
        (nonlierate)
               indigenous
                             people who
                             > managed to maintain their customs even
        after being
                      removed
                             from their
                             > land. My protagonist responded by
        suggesting
               the Hebrews,
                             but of course
                             > the Hebrews had the Old Testament.
        Recently on
               xmca
                      we had
                             the same
                             > point come up and baseball culture was
               suggested, and I
                             responded that I
                             > didn't think baseball-speak could be
               maintained without
                             baseball bats,
                             > balls, pitches, stadiums, radios,
        uniforms and
               other
                             artefacts used in
                             > the game.
                             >
                             > Am I wrong? Can anyone point to a custom
               maintained over
                             generations
                             > without the use of arefacts (including land
               and texts as
                             well as tools,
                             > but allowing the spoken word)?
                             >
                             > Andy
                             > --
                             >
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             > *Andy Blunden*
                             > Joint Editor MCA:
                      http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
                             > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
               <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
                      <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>

                             <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
                             > 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>>
<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>>>

<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>>
<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>>>>

                             >
                             > __________________________________________
                             > _____
                             > xmca mailing list
                             > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
                      <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto: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://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
                         Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
               <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
                      <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>

               <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>

                         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>>
<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>>>

<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>>
<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>>>>



                         __________________________________________
                         _____
                         xmca mailing list
                         xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
                      <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto: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




                      --         Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
                      Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
                      Department of Communication
                      University of California, San Diego


-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  *Andy Blunden*
                  Joint Editor MCA:
        http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
                  Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
               <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>

                  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>>
<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>>>


                  __________________________________________
                  _____
                  xmca mailing list
                  xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
               <mailto: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




               --         Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
               Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
               Department of Communication
               University of California, San Diego


-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *Andy Blunden*
           Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1

           Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
           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>>




-- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
        Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
        Department of Communication
        University of California, San Diego


-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
    Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
    Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
    <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>


    __________________________________________
    _____
    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://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca