deconstructionism

[Adam Blatner]

Hi Ivo, I don't know about your source and the spelling it uses for the word, but this definition is close, but not within all nuances. 
    Still, playing with you, let's say for argument's sake I resonate well with at least a number of aspects of this approach. In what sense am I a "victim"? It implies that you see the approach as negative rather than liberating.
      As a matter of fact, I don't doubt that some postmodernists (a group that overlaps with deconstructionists) overdo it and behave in ways that I might not agree with; on the other hand, I suspect that some others use this approach as an extension of the thrust of existentialism to question the pat categories that people throw around and expect that everyone agrees with the way they are defining those various words. In fact, it turns out that a close examination of most of the words that we think we agree on the meaning of become more weasly and weird when we examine them closely. In a way, then, deconstructionism also overlaps with a sensitivity to semantics. 

     In summary, yes, I like to ask, "What are we really talking about here?" I like to sharpen my innocence---i.e., my not assuming that I know what is being said---and to remind myself to ask questions about that which may seem to be obvious to others. (There was a detective character on American TV, "Columbo," played by Peter.. something.. who used this head-rubbing sort of pseudo-ignorance to penetrate and solve problems that ordinary police methods might miss. Socrates did this too.)

     Warmly, Adam 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ivo Banaco 
  To: Adam Blatner 
  Cc: Peter Howie ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:19 AM
  Subject: Re: Role theory revisited


  Hi Adam,


  Looks like you are being a victim of some extreme deconstrucionism. Do you agree? ;-)


  Deconstrucionism: Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.






  On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:

    Hi Peter: First I looked it up: 
     www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory 

     www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html 

    many other things under "Grounded Theory"

           Second, I found mysefl impatient and wondering what has come out of any sociological theory that has practical implications. Because of the theory, I will behave this way differently from how I might have behaved. 
          In trying to help structure my church, community, club, personal relations, extended family relations, do therapy, be a patient in therapy, a member of a personal growth group, etc. 
            I guess I await some response to that. 

       What I like about applied role theory is that it offers me a way to talk in the aforementioned contexts about frictions, problems that arise, a way to analyze what's going on so we can re-negotiate our expectations, de-fuse annoyances, resolve conflicts. It helps me do "shadow work" (a quasi-Jungian term referring to paying attention to my less-worthy motivations and ideas that I might otherwise tend to avoid). 

        Back to Grounded Theory---what you say sounds good, but I confess my present status in life is such that I'm not sure I want to apply myself to the challenge of certain levels of theory when I am not at all convinced that the wider context is valid---namely, what should and should not be considered valid theory. I reflect on what I just wrote and am aware of the irony, since I have done a great deal of theoretical thinking. I guess what I'm saying is that I want to start with real questions. I don't think the question: Can you give me a good research theory? is useful, as it implies some given criteria for what others (fellow academics?) consider "good"---and I might dispute those criteria.

         I hesitate to speak up this way because I'm not even trying to satisfy academic requirements. 

                Part of me holds with Kurt Lewin's line, nothing is so useful as a good theory; and part of me finds 90% of the writing in sociology and related subjects turgid and depleting---evoking in me a sense of "So what?" 

        I'm open to a few anecdotes where theory has in fact made a difference. Warmly, Adam

    ---- Original Message ----- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090212/8a6912b5/attachment.html>