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

VS: [xmca] Re: Knotworking (ex: Double stimulation?)

Hello,

Similar things happened in Finland too. See article by professor Martti Siisiäinen: Social Movements, Voluntary Associations and Cycles of Protest in Finland 1905-91 (Scandinavian Political Studies, Bind 15, 1992).

https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandinavian_political_studies/article/view/13149/25059

Rauno

________________________________________
Lähettäjä: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] käyttäjän Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net] puolesta
Lähetetty: 26. kesäkuuta 2013 3:30
Kopio: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Aihe: Re: [xmca] Re: Knotworking (ex: Double stimulation?)

But to make a distinction is not necessarily to set up a dichotomy.

In Australian social history the appearance of voluntary associations n
the 19th century (mostly trade union-type organisations, but also sports
and recreation, mutual-aid of various kinds, and later political parties
and groups) was a significant development, which meant people regularly
travelling long distances to stitch together the fabric of the emerging
nation. In the US, the parallel role was played, I believe, to a great
extent, also by Protestant sects, who pioneered the building of new
bonds of sociability and trust across great distances.

These New World projects constructed a new kind of civil society and the
basis for modernity. According to Hegel for example, modernity is
characterised by the eclipse of family as the chief bond and political
force in a state, by voluntary associations, such as professional
associations or regional community organisations, where people of
differing traditions construct new modern conditions of collaboration.
But of course, the family and the state both remain in place!

Andy

Greg Thompson wrote:
> Yes, Andy, I think the anthropological notion of kinship captures your
> point that not all biological relatives are "kin". Anthropologist
> David Schneider, for example, points out how kinship is really just
> the Aristotelian notion of "identity", and that "kinship" is
> fundamentally a matter of sameness of substance. Thus, political and
> religious affiliations are, in his view, systems of kinship.
>
> Seems like the same would be true of so-called "voluntary association"
> (scare quotes because of skepticism of notions of voluntary and the
> assumptions it makes about us as subjects). Any voluntary association
> worth its salt will surely have this sense of shared substance (and
> with regard to the making of this shared substance, Durkheim is
> essential - but that's a different story for a different time!). And
> don't most of these organizations have some sense of kinship built
> into their relational terms, whether "brother" or "brotherhood" or
> "family" or whatever?
>
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Yes, there is no doubt that the commitment many people have to
>     continuing the work of their parents and even ancestors, and their
>     investment in their children, evidences a project, an archetypal
>     project in fact. "Voluntary associations" are historically a
>     relatively recent invention, prior to which kinship was possibly
>     the most significant project in human life. Of course, it is not
>     always the case that a kinship relation always indicates the
>     relevance of the concept of "project" - I have cousins whom I have
>     never met and to whom I have no commitment whatsoever.
>
>     Andy
>


__________________________________________
_____
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