Alan Klein (Alan@klein.net)
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:04:40 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Alan wrote:
> > Kathleen's point, as I took it, was that
> > there is no "we" that can be consistently relied upon to "know" certain
> > things.
> I have trouble deriving your meaning. We are talking about a direct
> democracy here. I can be "consistently relied upon" to know what I think,
> student A can be "consistently relied upon" to know what she thinks, and
> staff member C can be "consistently relied upon" to know what he thinks.
Individually, yes. What Kathleen, as I heard her, was responding to was the
notion that "we all know" a particular thing. We all know our own,
individual thing, and we all often assume that "we all" know something, but
this is all too often a dangerous assumption and one that is rooted in our
ethnocentrism, particularly that of the dominant culture.
Alan went on:
> > Yours and my lives have been shaped in large part by our differential
> > treatment as straight white guys. Kathleen's and her son's have
> > been shaped
> > in large part by their differential treatment as Hispanic/Indians. I
> > her post as both an affirmation of the democratic schooling model
> > of freedom
> > and an inquiry into what may be a blind spot for us. I would like
> > to see us
> > be curious about that potential blind spot and to be open to its
> > exploration.
> I still don't understand. That I might know what I think about something
> without reading research about it doesn't mean that I'm not open to
> potential cultural blind spots. What has led to this idea?
I didn't hear Kathleen responding to a sense that you didn't need research
to know what you think. I heard her responding to the notion that what you
think is what "we all" think.
> > You went on to say, "'Awareness' is exclusive of 'science'." Could you
> > elaborate? I don't have any idea what you actually meant by it and don't
> > want to speculate.
> "Awareness" is not the *property* of science. In other words, we can have
> awareness of something without having obtained that awareness from
Thanks. That clears it up for me. I agree, as well!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:10:52 EST