Through my first quick read of Giroux et al's piece, Bhabha's notion of third space kept coming to mind, for it is here, he contends, that among contradictions and ambivalence cultural identity emerges. This idea of third space or "spaces between" fits well into Giroux et al's argument for a continuously evolving concept of culture. In these spaces of resistance is where one fights the idea that culture "has already been defined" and begin (or continue) processes of transformation (9). In many ways what the authors are labeling "counter-disciplinary" or "proper study of culture" (9).
"Cultures are produced as groups make sense of their social existence in the course of everyday experience" Although this quote really comes from Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts (see Notes 1) I was relieved to read this for how to define culture is always a struggle for me. I know what it is (I think) but I'm never quite sure how to put it into words.
"The most important aim of counter-disciplinary process is social change"(14). I think the challenge implicit in this quote and clearly stated in the article is moving beyond academia into public space. Furthermore to develop an awareness that like Ladson-Billings writes research needs to be in the public interest, or as the article states "We cannot capitulate to the disciplinary notion that research has as its only audience other experts in the field" (13).
Now for the question, disagreement or in-need-of-further-discussion piece. I can see how "disciplines are historically arbitrary" but I cannot see "interdisciplinary programs" particularly Women's studies, and Black studies, as having "failed"(2). To bring it back to my first point I think that these exist in a third space where it is not about isolation into a separate discipline but the creation of counter-disciplinary voices that unlike the rest maintain focus on historically silenced discourses.
I end with two questions that perhaps don't fit into this discussion but that kept coming to mind as I read the article. How would Delpit's argument of "teaching the culture of power" fit in here? and Does anyone else see a need to talk about agency?
Update
17 years ago
4 comments:
Roberto when you ask "does any one else see a need to talk about agency?" do you mean other theorists or do you mean us in the class?
Perhaps both. How can we talk about emancipation and counter-disciplines that transcend into public spheres, without also addressing the individual 's intrinsic desire to resist, and change their realities?
Re: the interdisciplinary programs as having failed, I tend to agree with Roberto. I don't see this. I dont' see it being demonstrated throught the article either.
Doesn't this third space apply to resisting intellectuals even within an academic discipline? I suppose I am hung up on the idea that our chosen "disciplines" represent our own biases and should be confronted by the enlightened expert. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the idea of "counter-disciplinary" praxis.
Post a Comment