These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Lois Holzman wrote:
> I've always thought the lack of dogma, definition and exclusivity was a
> strength of CHAT.
> Lois
>
I agree, and I think that's how it looks to folks who might be considered
CHAT afficianados. Interestingly, though, I have heard some people who are
coming from outside the CHAT community characterize CHAT as a movement
that looks, to them, comparatively dogmatic -- compared to the
disciplinary traditions where they feel at home. I've heard remarks about
preoccupation with LSV's work (and/or Marx, Hegel, etc.) as a kind of
scripture, for example, such that people are concerned with properly
interpreting LSV's writing, and using that as a kind of authority, in ways
that seem to them unlike anything that happens in their own fields of
research.
To CHAT folk this no doubt seem like a completely unrecognizable
characterization.
What do you think?
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Sep 11 09:20 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT