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