Re: [xmca] Taking culture into account/Doing harm?

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi Mike, you wrote,

" hence my focus on two-way bilingual/biculturalism...... which virtually
never turns out to be symmetric.

I'll still with hold comment on what we might call the spiritualist
epistemology vis a vis CHAT. There I think matters are complicated (at
least) by the selective reading of the CHAT tradition. (All our readings
are selective of course, but this would be the matter for discussion -- if
we ever got to it!)."

Not sure if I should start another thread but I would love to open a chat
about the *spirit* which informs socio-historical or cultural-historical
theory.  I do believe the topic of "the spirit" when exploring culture or
discourse or tradition is circling around these topics but in our respect
for "tolerence" we avoid mention of this topic. I would suggest critical
theory and emancipation also inhabit "a spirit" whenever we discuss history
as central. Sylvia's article on the centrality of history for Vygotsky's
method also expresses "a spirit". Therefore, "spirit" as a topic may
be central to exploring the Richardson article.

For now I want to add Zygmunt Bauman's voice to the conversation on the
topic of multi-cultural dialogue. Zygmunt is discussing one's perception of
subjectivity or objectivity when attempting to understand. Whether the
event is understood as subjective or objective depends on where one
stands.  He wrote,

"People far removed from the center of state power, deprived of all direct
experience of decision making, of politics as an expression of wilfull
intention, naturally tend to see it as a quasi-natural phenomenon, and
account for it in the language of CAUSAL links, determinations, inexorable
tendencies.  This view is probably hotly contested by the INsiders, who
view the same process as a contest of intentions, as an outgrowth of fellow
politicians coming together, thrashing out contentious issues, bringing
into the debate their respective intentions, bargaining, quarrelling, and
purposes, reaching a compromise, gaining an edge over their opponents, or
failing to accomplish what they wished.  Both accounts are, in a sense,
viable and have their good reasons. There is nothing in human affairs which
in principle renders the natural-scientific approach inapplicable. Its
application can be contested, if at all, ONLY ON THE GROUND OF PRACTICAL
INTENTIONS AND PREFERENCES. All argument coming (truly or allegedly) from
the 'nature of the object' must be, however, UNGROUNDED." [in Hermeneutics
and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding, 1978, page 20]

Mike, you mentioned there are various ways of understanding the CHAT
perspective. Understanding CHAT as causal science and understanding CHAT as
history [ subjective phenomena or objective phenomena] seem to be
alternative ways of exploring "the spirit" which energizes and "moves"
understanding *higher* *deeper* or into more elaborate *complexity*.  These
alternative perspectives incarnate different spirits [and the denial of
*spirit* as an approach also is reflective of a particular
movement expressing an epoch or spirit AS effective history]

Larry








On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:49 AM, White, Phillip
<Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>wrote:

> as you pointed out, Mike:
>
> "And, I was suggesting, I among others are among those who have engaged in
> concerns about multi-cultural education TO the european-rooted
> epistemologies. For part one, it was the way in which multi-cultural
> programs that have mastery of only the euro-rooted views seemed the issue,
> hence my focus on two-way bilingual/biculturalism...... which virtually
> never turns out to be symmetric."
>
> i can only agree with, since this too has been my experience.  and witness
> as well the attack on classes where the curriculum is explicitly directed
> towards understanding the mexican-american experience in the united states,
> which does i think further illustrate an explicit political antagonism
> towards multi-cultural education.
>
> within our schools of education in training teachers there is little time
> spent on supporting teachers in, first, understanding their own
> epistemologies, and second, no time is spent in understanding
> epistemologies of minoritized groups of peoples.  and i don't know if the
> second part can actually be done within the time constraints of most
> teacher education programs.
>
> i greatly identify with Michael's worry that this could lead us down into
> the rabbit hole.  perhaps Foucault's comment that in the end when arguing
> in defense of one's position, stance, philosophy, etc., one is left with,
> "This is what I prefer."  i'm paraphrasing him here, cause i can't just now
> find the exact quote.  if pressed, i will.
>
>
>
> Phillip White, PhD
> Urban Community Teacher Education Program
> School of Education & Human Development
> University of Colorado Denver
> phillip.white@ucdenver.edu
> ________________________________________
> From: mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: White, Phillip
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Taking culture into account/Doing harm?
>
> Hi Phillip -- Thanks for bringing us back to the reason for my belief that
> the
> Richardson article was relevant to xmca readers .I, too, saw the paper as
> consisting of two parts and (perhaps mistakenly) thought it strategic to
> raise point one before point two.
>
> You put the matter well:
> i understand Richardson's critique as being both intercultural as well as
> intracultural - intercultural as his cultural heritage is one that has been
> oppressed to a near point of extinction by we european-rooted colonizers,
> and he is calling attention to the historical and present day fact that our
> european based epistemologies marginalize at best, while usually attempting
> to erase Indigenous epistemologies.  furthermore, ironically, the very
> tools of multicultural education result more in enclosure of Indigenous
> epistemologies rather than inclusion.
>
> And, I was suggesting, I among others are among those who have engaged in
> concerns about multi-cultural education TO the european-rooted
> epistemologies. For part one, it was the way in which multi-cultural
> programs that have mastery of only the euro-rooted views seemed the issue,
> hence my focus on two-way bilingual/biculturalism...... which virtually
> never turns out to be symmetric.
>
> I'll still with hold comment on what we might call the spiritualist
> epistemology
> vis a vis CHAT. There I think matters are complicated (at least) by the
> selective reading of the CHAT tradition. (All our readings are selective of
> course, but this would be the matter for discussion -- if we ever got to
> it!).
>
> The issues are still well worth discussion. That is what I think.
> mike
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, White, Phillip <
> Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu<mailto:Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>> wrote:
> good morning, Mike, and everyone else who've read both the Lave article
> and the Richardson article -
>
> from my perspective, the Richardson article is a good example of Lave's
> call to be will to take a political stance in one's work.
>
> i understand Richardson's critique as being both intercultural as well as
> intracultural - intercultural as his cultural heritage is one that has been
> oppressed to a near point of extinction by we european-rooted colonizers,
> and he is calling attention to the historical and present day fact that our
> european based epistemologies marginalize at best, while usually attempting
> to erase Indigenous epistemologies.  furthermore, ironically, the very
> tools of multicultural education result more in enclosure of Indigenous
> epistemologies rather than inclusion.
>
> on the other-hand, Richardson's critique is also intracultural so far as
> he is a fellow academic using multiple academic cultural tools of
> argumentative discourse to press his point.
>
> what strikes me thus far is that it appears that rather than engaging in
> his critique, we've veered off (my perception) into the morality of
> inter-intra-cultural critique.
>
> i think that Richardson is putting forth epistemologies that i can barely
> wrap my head around: "sharing a spirit"; "shadow memories and imagination
> are foundational to rational thinking"; "shimmers of imagination are
> reason"; "shadow relations in visionary narratives", etc.  part of my mind
> rebels against what i think of as - i can't find the right word at this
> moment.  but it's akin to transubstantiation.
>
> at the same time, Richardson's work calls into question the genealogy of
> CHAT is that part of its roots are in marxist communism, a theory that
> assumes that communism is the way, truth and light for the organization of
> human activities.  Wertsch demonstrates this quite clearly in his research
> in Estonia, in which Estonians being educated within the russian hegemony
> of soviet history, learned the language structures to be repeated as a kind
> of catechism in order to do well at school, all the while learning cultural
> "truths" at home about Estonian history.  (it is of the greatest irony that
> within the three baltic nations that now russians are utilizing the
> language structure of victimhood, all the while denying the history of
> russian oppression.  but, american history as understood by most americans
> has little understanding of american oppression.)
>
> i think that one of our shared cultural practices as academics is that we
> want to demonstrate what we do know, and become deeply hesitant to discuss
> areas in which we're pretty ignorant.  this is my take on why from my point
> of view it's been so difficult to tackle Richardson's primary argument -
> which is that historically, our practices as americans has been the
> eradication of Indigenous epistemologies, though we're perfectly happy to
> display their cultural artifacts in our museums.
>
> i would think that those of you from any part of the world that's been
> colonized even if your roots are those of the colonizers should be able to
> recognize.
>
> and, in the immortal words of Eugene, "What do you think?"
>
> phillip
>
> Phillip White, PhD
> Urban Community Teacher Education Program
> School of Education & Human Development
> University of Colorado Denver
> phillip.white@ucdenver.edu<mailto:phillip.white@ucdenver.edu>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>] On
> Behalf Of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:15 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> Subject: [xmca] Taking culture into account/Doing harm?
>
> The attached article has been hanging around my desktop for some time now.
> It
> is critical of people like myself who had sought ways in ways to assist
> kids from
> non-mainstream cultural communities when they encounter standard schooling.
>
> At least one of the shoes provided seems to fit. Seems worth reflecting on
> the critique
> as a whole.
>
> Anyone interested?
>
> mike
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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