我整理出開會摘要,等江森回應

Dear Richard,

Again, we have finished the third round of reading group. The discussion was interesting. I also try to outline some key questions and comments for your reference.

- "Reader": The one who summarized the paper ("...Useful Knowledge") first posed a question: who is addressed by you to be influenced by the "useful knowledge"? Or should I put it in this way: given the useful knowledge, who should and will benefit from it in your mind? Or readers? This question has also been raised by a cultural anthropologist.

- "Class": As a sociologist he expressed that you have shown us how good a historian could be by teasing historical materials. He also mentioned that there are likely many contents concerning EP in the text. You seemed to have a puzzle about the part of "class" used by EP. You rarely used the term "class". Is it a challenge to EP? Did you try to imply that the class was not developed completely yet?

- "Time": Besides, he liked to know more about the timelines you set for the analysis, say, the periods (1790-1840s; 1890s-1920s,...). Why didn't you deal with issues occured during the period from 1840 and 1890? He wondered if you seeked to consider the revolution periods in the Europe and US in which the UK's popular education became an issue. Also, he wanted to know the development after 1848. He also found that in the conclusion you addressed the shift that the state provided education. So, working class faced a challenge as their subjectivity was in crisis becasue of the factory movements. You saw control/hegemony by examining the structure - factory's techniques of control, labour's reproduction, etc. You also criticized EP's making of working class before 1830s. You wanted to state that the period before that was radical education. Since factory movement, indepent artisans were destroyed and people became proletarians. These people became the basis of radical education. To some extent, you question the making of working class by EP.

----A historican argued that you might like to give attention to the most important periods of historical develoments from mid-19 century.The historian was also puzzled that there seemed to be many mistakes in terms of printing in this book. He saw this article as a historical articale. You seemed to look for alternative ways, says, forms (press), in response to the dilemma of the time.

----An art-based scholar referred to danish education after the invasion of germany in comparison to your focus on UK's industrialisation. She found that the public business school and peasants' education had gave rise to self-identity of the nation. She tried to refer a difference between UK's working class and Denmark's new subjectivities. So, the article's focus seemed not on the subjectivities of working class. In her knowledge, she wanted to know how you examine "people" before the examination of education. People were likely to live before to learn the knowledge. For example, denmark's people's expression and human wholeness will not be expensed by the learning of art. By contrast, the present human being learn first, and then live.

-"Radical dilemma": the sociologist also liked to know the implications of the dilemma? He was not sure why you addressed the dilemma. Is that ("the value acquisition of knowledge very highly" vs. "they were aware of the poverty of education resource to hand") really the dilemma?

-"Form": how was really useful knowledge to be got? We did think you bring useful reference for us to notice informality - how knowledge lies everywhere for those who observe and think, say, family. Especially I like the "networks" part.

----an education-based scholar proclaimed that your article is useful for us to examine the tradition regarding the link between education and daily life. But he tried to know that if there is a sense of nostagia in the text. He wondered whether there is any chance for us to persue for the past, say, family education, which is outside the existing education system.

- "intellectual": he wanted to know why you addressed "working class intellectual". Does it link to gramsci's term "intellectual"?

----the historian seeked to answer this by addressing commitment and backgrounds. He used the example Raymond Williams - who had a strong committment to the weak but he actually came from the less priviledged family. But he argued that some elites also fight for the weak as well. Besides, he thinks that Gramscian perspective is important as it shows the role of the popular, which is simple-minded. To some extent, your article is crucial for us to examine different choices to the existing educational institutions. But, the anthropologist argued that the article didnot detail how to put this useful knowledge into practice. For example, there is a gap between knowledge education and community. Or, the educational scholar mentioned teachers are overwhelmed by too many lectures so that they lack energies and time to reform the structure.

- "artisan": he was puzzled that why you addressed "artisan remain too loose for serious analystic use". A manager of university museum mentioned an example of local artists who face the decline of "master and apprentice". Today, how are new artists able to inherit their masters' talents and knowledge? The art-based scholar argued that creation and life in teacher-student seem rarely seen.


Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee