Ivan, Phillip, et al., Perhaps helpful? Martin
Attachment:
Bird‐David 1999 “Animism” Revisited Personhood, E.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Ivan Rosero wrote: > Seems the other thread arrived here, and now needs its own heading. This > is especially directed to any among you who find it difficult-to-impossible > to articulate what the "science" of CHAT might be absent specific > questions, intentions, and projects. I know we've got our "Romantic > Science", but that's a luxury of the inner speech of this community. > Outside the fuzzy embrace of our shared discourse --like, e.g., in > applying for grants and begging for jobs-- we're asked to "design", > "implement", "deliver", "measure", "account", and "asses". I share Andy's > distaste for critiques of current Vygotsky-inspired research that rely on > totalizations that few of us, if any, make. Instead, as the other post > helps us to understand, we're riddled with misgivings about the value(s) of > our research, rather than comfortably confident in the "results" we arrive > at. At least this is true for me (apologies if I've offended anyone so > far). > > Our starting point is socially formed, culturally-constituted, > multi-historically dependent consciousness. To me, there is no "prying" > this open (that's scientistic talk). Many of our forefathers (or perhaps > this is just an effect of translation into English) unfortunately speak of > "penetrating" this amalgam (where one might stand to carry out this > tactical maneuver eludes me). I think we have no choice but to "enter and > dwell" into this view of human consciousness, slowly and with an animist > spirit, but not from outside --rather moving from one inside to another > inside in the very same process of working/walking with others. To do > what? To create the value(s) of research --because these don't exist > beforehand (that's a luxury of established scientism). > > So I'll end with a worry I've had for a while. Along with romantic > science, I think many of us harbor a, perhaps implicit, notion of "romantic > research". Is the latter really viable in the bean-counting milieu of what > dominant academia understands as "scientific" research? > > Ivan > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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