Johnson's feedback

各位好,

針對幾位於上週六提出的問題,江森的回應如下,見轉寄信,
http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/

抱歉,如我有誤讀及錯譯你們的問題,請包涵。我們十一月要閱讀的文章是"Really Useful Knowledge": Counter Education - The Early Working-Class Tradition (批判教育學)(文章請見第一頁是Preface的那份,可以全看,或只看如題的部份),將由巨擘導讀,開會地點再議。

Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒



From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: reading group 10/25Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:18:55 +0000Dear Lee,
Many thanks for this. Again interesting questions are asked. I attempt outline replies now - much more later on my visit.


1. Yes, perhaps the sociologist is right to say most CS focuses either on the text or on everyday life - though often only on the text, including the texts of great theorists! The key linkages here are of course reading and production and their connections with everyday life, because these are the moments that mediate the textual form (abstracted for examination by the analyst) and the everyday life of both readers and producers. In many ways, as argued in The Practice of Cultural Studies reading -refiguration in Ricoeur - is the most important integrative moment. If we look at readers and reading in their social setting we can often get to how texts are used and made to signify, therefore their life in the world.. Well known older studies on these lines include the work of Ien Ang and Janice Radway but feminist research on media which approaches texts through readers is reviewed more generally in Charlotte Brunsdon's book on Soap Opera research..


2. 'Form'. this is stolen in part from Marx who talks all the time about 'social forms'. Maybe it is another way of talking abpout regularities or even structures (though I prefer forms/formations today because these are more dynamic categories which can express movement as in change of form ). Form also borrows from literary work and art criticism - especially from Barthes perhaps. This expresses the ways in which particular cultural forms - say narrative- exercise a particular kind of pressure on readers - e.g. the desire to know what happens next! Or the identification with characters etc. Other forms, e.g. visual images, work differently, according to their specific form. So text really influences reader - partly through form, partly of course through content. The analogy is with economic forms' e.g. the commodity form in economic analysis - though commodity is in fact often a link between economy and culture.


3. Yes, space is absent, so for that matter is time except in a limit sense of time around the circuit. The model is abstract. It is not a concrete description of how things in particular are! Only of SOME relations within the concrete.(Compare the discussion in The Best Marx about concrete and abstract) BUT you might be able to think space and time in relation to the model however, because the space of production is almost always - especially in commodified culture - removed spatially from the place of consumption or reading. On time, some people have suggested a spiral would be a better way to understand the circuit - but sometimes diagrammatic forms just have limits!! For me, some versions of the circuit are so complex, and try to be concrete, but they don't really aid our thinking.
Sources of the circuit:


Marx's circuit of capital and a reading of the Grundrisse is central to both Hall and me. I first read Stuart's account of the Grundrisse in a CCCS stencilled paper, and of course the encoding/decoding model. But I did my own reading of Marx in the early 1980s, and I have always differed from decoding and decoding in stressing - with Gramsci - the importance of everyday life and common sense as the ground for reception and production. This also corresponds to cultural studies older interest in ordering culture as it is lived by particular social groups. I tend to disagree with those who see all this in terms of discursive fields, or even texts and readings, because this is not materals enough for me, and it has limits politically, unless you address very concretely what is happening in the lives of ordinary people.
Much later i discovered Ricoeur and his hermeneutics, and was interested in the parallel - though there are also some major differences


Hope this helps. The sides and commentary are very good - and most useful.

I will reply to your query about two months, when I have talked to the household.

Good questions!
Richard


On 25 Oct 2008, at 16:24, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,

We had the 2nd reading group today (what is cultural studies anyway?). The meeting was very successful and there are more and more participants from different disciplines and walks of life. Some scholars can be organisers in the future. As usual, I summarize some following questions for your reference. We are planning that you may be can attend the last one in the early April next year.

1. The gap between the model and reality. - In terms of general knowledge, a sociologist takes the moment 2 (text) and 4 (lived culture) as the more common areas in relation to cultural studies. But, in practice, he has a puzzle of how to really make the two work together. (or even including the other moments)

2. The definition.- A media-based scholar has a question of the term "form", which seems to reemerge throughout the paper. What is the form anyway?

3. Subjectivity and space.- A educational scholar wants to know more about how the role of authors/readers can be foreground in the circuit. He is also interested in an issue of "space" related to the circuit, which seems to be absent from the paper.

Anyway, I attach a powerpoint file for your reference. I first pose three (might be bad) questions regarding this paper. I have a puzzle of sources of this circuit, which seems to come from different works (Marx, Hall, du Gay et al...).

Despite slow procedure of the university, we still plan for the future. In the community university's national assembly 2009, you will be invited to give a keynote speech. Time is already confirmed on 12 April 2009. We also organise some seminars regarding social movements, community education, environmental protection and antinuclear movement, and the like. As we need to negotiate with groups that are involved in these issues. Would you be possible to consider some of your articles related to these issues, especially community education? Do you have any specific works that are not too thick/dense to read? As the readers might be the general public or community workers. We want to translate these articles and edit that with the results of seminars.

Cheers,

Lee

1025之後

大家好,

謝謝昨天至文藻,第二次讀書會近乎三十人,有不少非學院的參與者提供有趣的問題及想法,
也多謝劉俊裕的導讀,讓我們一開始有不少問題意識地,幫助大家進入討論,
巨擘、世文、南生、右君、錦旭、力軒、揚騰等人的見解,增加我們許多思考的可能性。感謝。

由於本讀書是開放的,我喜歡,也希望日後大家多帶人來,不必客氣,請巨擘、懷宣及俊裕老師們,將我這封信轉寄給你們邀請來的朋友,http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/如可以,提供他們的聯絡信箱給我,加到讀書會的群組中,

如之前提到,我會陸續將導讀內容及討論問題放至部落格上,所以,麻煩導讀者可以整理好的內容寄給我,我將請助理再處理,

其次,日後每次的導讀者,如果希望增刪內容,或想到不同導讀的形式、時間或地點,可告知我來協調,...以導讀者為主,故,下次開會的地點及時間,原則上尊重巨擘老師的決定。

也請尚未來本讀書會的朋友,有空來聊聊。

Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒

計畫分享

各位好,
以下是巨擘轉寄的信,提及有新朋友張世文的加入(非常歡迎!!!)
還有一些關於明年江森來訪的初步計畫。感謝有此具體的計畫,目前只待成大台文的申請程序,其他當然,我希望各位如有不同想法者,麻煩也都提供出來,本讀書會應該是得越開放越好,請有意加入組織活動者,不用客氣(欠工人啦!)。
有人問到我辦讀書會的策略是什麼?不妨暫時,將讀書會也視為一種政治的計畫,如這週文章中江森堅持的,也就是說要對不同的取向的好壞部份都要了解,不是只在文本的形式上打轉,而也得一直扣到面對的物質面。我想,巨擘提到的台灣現況,透過座談會或參訪的形式,將可回應到讀書會諸多(在歐陸脈絡)文本中的討論。我希望,我們讀書會至終能很貼近台灣的需要。
如果有人需要我由台南接送,請再告知。0930190709。當日請各位最好二點前就到,文藻週末有管制坐電梯,我會請助理於至善樓(最高那棟)電梯口等大家。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:13:01 +0800From: jupochen@gmail.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: 會前小感
宇軒，

這星期六有一位剛認識的朋友也會參加。他的名字是張世文，曾經拿公費到劍橋大學歷史系攻讀博士，指導教授是 Peter Burke，後來因為要養家，還沒有完成學位就回台灣，一直到現在。張世文的學識淵博，文筆甚佳，我想Johnson 選集的翻譯可以請他代勞。也許我們這個星期六可討論一下，這本書要如何進行。
我初步的想法是，明年四月我們會請他和幾個社運、社區教育、環保、反核的團體座談，你請Johnson選幾篇和這些取向較接近的文章，然後我們把他所選的文章以及座談會記錄集結成書。目前社區大學全國促進會的社大文庫有意願出版。另外，社區大學全國研討會請他做keynote speech的時間已確定是四月十二日，也可以先讓他心裡先有個譜，至於請他談些什麼，我們會再和他溝通。

張世文的 email是：boon45718@gmail.com ，我已傳給他這星期要討論的文章。

巨擘

會前小感

大家好, 如我之前提到,本月二十五日將於文藻舉辦第二次研讀會,

今又邀請一位在地朋友,邱毓斌,希望他有空能來開講。http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/(大家可參考近日,右欄有幾位新加入者)

如他提到南部這款的集體聚會討論很需要,也必須本著更開放的態度,
確實,我想研讀會主體雖在文本,但或許因著文本之便,我們應對在地的脈絡,實際問題及社會關係有很深的理解,以形成更豐富的連結,

我以為,日後因著每次主題,能否再擴大參與者,未必非學院派的參與者不可,
尤其有談到教育、國際關係或霸權時,找些老師、外國駐台人員、社區工作者,未嘗不可?
我想跳脫或突破的是,每每於特定場域,就該怎麼做的形式,有無想過可以有不同的做法?

Kind regards,

Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒

開會地點

大家好,

本月二十五日的讀書會,最終決定於文藻外語學院至善樓十二樓,下午2-5點,可早到!

由劉俊裕及本人準備導讀講義,希望大家都能來, 週六學校沒人,方便停車。
如由高速公路,請由鼎金系統下左營,轉鼎中街不久即至後門;
如果要至前門,則轉至民族路,一段900號,很好找。

如有可能,下回開會,再協調高師大台灣文化與語言研究所所長,借用協調高師大的場地,

如果有人要由台南出發者,我可載四個,搶先報名。

Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒

feedback

各位好,

我和江森聊了我們的第一次讀書會,幾個問題給他,他又很有耐心的回答如下,雖然仍是抽出重點,但已夠豐富,希望稍解大家當日的困惑, 光是這些回應,我們可否進一步討論有無整理出來的可能?

此外,我想計畫,我們明年最後一場後,或許請他出席一次回顧會,做個總結及反思。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒


From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Chapters of the book on BlairismDate: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:19:44 +0100

Dear Lee
Thanks for these very interesting questions.It must have been difficult to read the chapter as a freestanding essay. It is from a book about History, Theory and Politics and really needs this larger context.
Replying fully would take a lot of time and perhaps should await my visit, but:

1. Please tell your sociologist that I'm grateful for the appreciative comment. A major reason for writing at the time was an argument about history and theory, in which the two practices were often opposed and the role of abstraction in history-writing was underestimated. Marxism was, in this late 70s/early 80s, debate often the point of reference. For example, many of those writing social history at the time were either ex-communists or influenced by the new left or (like me) influenced by historians like EP Thompson. So it made sense, in this context, to go back to Marx himself - who does have very rich methodological reflections. I wanted show how abstraction and detailed narrative or concrete studies were not opposed practices in Marx's own work, but worked together. Theory was also more than a research question or hypothesis. I have actually found this work useful ever since because it helped me understand about the key continuing issue of theory and the empirical, micro/macro etc. For example, I would criticise some macro-sociologists, certainly Giddens, for failing to bring concrete studies to their theories. His theories are no more than generalised descriptions often inapplicable to particular experiences, places and times. I think Marx would have called them 'thin abstractions'.

2. Please tell your phenomenologist that I am very interested in this comment. Since I wrote this piece, I have become very interested in the work of Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, especially Ricoeur and in the similarities and differences between these phenomenologists and the cultural circuit as I developed it from Stuart Hall; (and ultimately Marx's Grundrisse). A key point of connection is with Ricoeur's idea of mimesis 1,2 and 3 in Narrative and History. And his idea of refiguration. Really interesting questions are raised about structure and visibility which need time to discuss! In general I have a critical but also appreciative relation to structuralism - a bit like Ricoeur's in fact!

3.Your community worker is spot on about EPThompson and the longer debate in the New Left. Narrowly the piece was a reply to his big attack on Althusser - The Poverty of Theory. A lot of our work on history and theory had Edward Thompson as our main discussant. Unfortunately the discussion got very heated and hurtful and we felt he didn't listen to us, but I continue to relate to him in my work and my life in many ways. For example, I think that my current political involvements are, in part, saying to EPT, yes, my work is political (he said it wasn't!). The piece today has some political relevance I think. It could also be seen to be addressed - on the other side of the argument - against dogmatic or over-abstract theories, which pretend to be actual descriptions, whether coming from sociologists or Marxists or neo-liberal economists! It has to be said that Marx himself sometimes made this mistake - hence 'the Best Marx'
4 The piece is certainly materialist - and I still think of myself as a historical materialist and contemporary historian especially interested in culture. I am happy with Raymond Williams' 'cultural materialism'! But what does this mean???
5 Yes, relations between disciplines. We were trying to work out what a cultural studies approach and use of history writing might be, different from cultural history. I have written about this relation directly elsewhere and could give references if it would be useful. One approach was to studying history-writing itself as a cultural practice = the main concern of the book from which the chapter is taken.. Later in different groups we worked out the idea of Popular Memory as another way of looking at history. In general I would insist that it is not only the discipline of history that should work historically! (My own background is as a historian of course).
Hope this helps.
Did you get the documentation? Was it enough?
cheers
Richard


Dear Richard, We had a successful section of reading group on last Saturday.There will be one section every month before your visit in April 2009.In this first section, I found some interesting questions related to this paper (reading for the best Marx) that might be useful for your reference.I list two main questions as follows.

1. Why did you write this articule? Why do you think it is important to find a best version of Marx?

- As one sociologist was impressed by your use of a lot of example to support your argument, he was humbled by this detailed analysis and said that he can only follow your framework in understanding this articule. But he has no clue the reason why you write this articule.

- As the other art-based scholar argues that the circuit you address involves different moments. He draws on phenomenology and shows his suspicion of the articule based on the circuit, which seems to work within a "structure". But, he wants to know that how you deal with those areas which are both visible and invisible at the same time? (I am not sure if I translate in the correct way!)

2. How does the arguement or hypothesis of the articule emerge? What is the political goal of this articule?
- As one community worker posed these two questions, he was puzzled whether your argument has something to do with the conflict between you and EP Thompson. Is it related to the long-term argument within the new left circle? Did it relate to you earlier reflection within the history discipline?

- One education-based scholar posed a question about the materialist foundation in which the articule was written.

- One cultural studies scholar addressed the tension between disciplines, e.g., cultural studies and sociology, history and cultural studies. So, perhaps it also caused the argument over theory/history/politics relationships emerge?!

Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee