Theoretical Stance

My position/motivation: 

Language is not my only ground - I am not a strong constructivist in that sense

I believe there appears to be a collective ground of being 'the present ground'

This inclusive field appears as a complimentary source, it's fractal (self similar) and lacks distinct boundaries

 I call it a number of things  (The Layered, Textured Surface, Present Ground, EbA, AllinAll)

It/We are imminent and present, the phenomenological field….? 

It can sometimes appear to be filtered by language….(hence language/discourse is important)

Language has distinct boundaries and tends to emphasis opposition over complementarity(arguably)

The framing/filtering may lead to a greater attention being paid to certain aspects of the phenomenological field 

How we access it, valid methods of access....

To an inclusive or exclusive listening

Research itself is concerned with both

Am I mixing personal motivations with research theory- I want to use i.e. discourse analysis to measure access to/ framing of the potential of phenomenological ground (as I define it)...does that makes sense?

Current Stance Updated May 2013

If we take a strong post-structuralist position, it seems to me the academic project falls apart, for example any claims to be able to mark this essay/blog are ridiculous as the tutor is simply marking their selection of an infinite number of interpretations the text offers (Barthes) And if we completely abandon meta narrative for exclusive  closed autopoetic system of local discourse what of the inclusive commons physical, social, conceptual, spiritual (dependent origination)? what is left but the notoriously exclusive  ghost of capital...? (Derrida 1994) and it's profitable  sectarian disputes, and profitable control based replacements for an excluded common source of  inherent, emergent harmony.(dependent origination)

While the capitalist  ghost dominates, assumed closure is convenient  and  rational within the local institution (1) (Chomsky )   as it is cheaper in the short term, whether the assumed closed discourse adapts to a changing environment and hence survives in Ashbys sense of Ultrastability  is questionable. There lies the importance of research, the relation between quantitive and qualitative, and the extension of rationality beyond the local language games (Wittgenstein) and their influences (Foucualt) to the excluded that for example complexity theory has reminded us of in  descriptions of self-similarity. That an  individualist segmented distinction orientated institution alienated from its inclusive emergent roots is capable of heeding this is another question.

1. Foundation General/Living Systems Theory - Emergence - Wholeness

2. Openness of Potential  Progressive - Post Structural - Barthes

(c.f Derrida - My reading of Derrida  is that Language/Concepts can restrict/filter our view - c.f. Appreciative Judgement Vickers)

( While language offers some  freedoms of interpretation it also can shutter out our view of eg Wholeness/Self similarity/Emergence (BwO) 

Perhaps due to binary basis of the linguisitic concept.

3. The forces of capital also attempt to impose a closure on thought, movement and the subject, eg by appropriating the Systems theory 

Allowing promoting - Forms of Opennes/Creativity/Freedom maximising  flows of capital - Internal Combustion engine etc

Reducing/ stereotyping? Forms of Openness/Creativity/Freedom that don't maximise capital flows.

Inclusive Value <> Comparative Value 

Hence a need for Critical Theory - Habermas 

This suggests a balance of certain Post Structural insights (re constituative?) and understanding of Ideology/hegemony from the likes of Habermas.

> Critical Discourse Analysis - Fairclough

> Wodak - 

> Van Djik

I consider it worth stating my basic philosophical stance (ontological belief) which is that there is a ubiquitous sourcemanifestation(1)  of quality and harmony that is 'non-dual', this is not a linguistic or any other type of construction, rather this is our 'natural source'' of being. these  attempts at explanation and  language itself are inadequate to deal with that signified by 'non dual' as the Taoists (Lao Tzu) and some  Buddhists note. Deleuzian attempts to define 'Univocity'  in a manner acceptable to the post structural community and his 'BwO' perhaps sum up the problem. The source isn''t complicated,  post structuralisms attempts to address via the linguistic turn, via  a language founded on the dualism of the enclosure of the conceptual boudary are...

Current stance:

Updated 

I believe a dialectical approach should be taken rather than one that forces a choice between on extreme position  or another.(and the prejudice that often brings with it) Ie between idealism and empiricism (James, Dewey), humanism and structualism universalism or localism (Best 264) .Seeing Foucaults work as offering important tools for the reconstruction of modern theory. To salvage and reconstruct modern theories in the light of valuable postmodern critiques."

My research stance :  moderate social constructivism, as 'facilitating multi voice reconstruction' aligns with my research aims, and what I consider to be an effective research position. (Guba & Lincoln p170)  I consider there may be systemic blocks to this potentially inclusive  'balance of voices'(1) (unity of voice? univocity?) (Deleuze) c.f. externalities  (Chomsky), which would suggest the need for some input from post-Marxist critical theory...(Habermas, Fairclough 1989) (2)

Only in regard to closed situations is it possible to take actions that can be rationally defended.  (Prescriptive) ( aim : efficiency) (Production Focus)

In reality more facets of a situation can always be taken into account (Open) (Interpretive-Communicative)

It is simply a matter of initial assumption that makes possible the prescriptive approach

(D'arcy)

To discuss these assumption in the context of intersubjective value this is the hope and aim of Habermas(Discourse Ethics). The assumptions are not necessarily at the level of objective cultural form (hence isn't the argument against Habermas assuming he is advocating modernist fixed cultural forms  a straw dog?), discourse ethics can be intersubjective - related to a subjects experience of a form, this occurs though enhanced communication and care for all participants.****(9307)

 (1)I am not a strong  ' post-structuralist' in the sense that I do not believe our category systems alone create our experience, rather a 'collective source'  may (to some extent) be filtered through them.(this bears some relation to buddhist concepts of dependent origination() that balances the idea of 'no essential self'  {}  this aligns with my concerns

(2) I believe Post-structuralism is not adequate unless it seriously addresses the performative contradiction discussed by Habermas in 'Discourse Ethics', and  by Hicks, the 'modest' flattening of the plane leaving it susceptible to binary and capital meta narratives.(Derrida) . There seems also to be a critical performative contradiction that stops some strong constructivist from addressing defining / exploring the more difficult problems  to avoid  "recreating them" via perfomativity (Austin) and Iteration (Butler) ?

(3) I spent some time and effort contemplating a Marxist/Critical Theory Stance and creating a facebook group to gather info during the student protests over Nov/Dec2010. It collected info of creative activities during the protests (music /dance)

The group was removed without notice by facebook, no explanation was give. At the time I had 800 contacts. 

I believe certain self-sustaining discourses, if non- inclusive are a serious threat to our survival (such as the neo-liberal market discourse) and a source of inequality. Hence I cannot take exclusively a strong post-structuralist stance. Neither do I believe in simplistic reductionist positivism, although some scientific 'truths' should not be ignored if we are concerned with our safety (eg gravity & climate change). So a moderate  Social Constructionist position is what I am left with with... from a research point of view...


(maybe some  avenues of stronger constructionism that are not exclusive/exploitative and take into account equality may be of value, similarly for post-positivism)

Although I applaud the modesty of post structuralism, I recognize the problem Derrida pointed out in 'What is Ideology' in Spectres of Marx(3), where he points out that if we flatten the plane and do away with a general essence of man  without dispensing with the capital ghost - the quantitative metric $$$,  what will balance it... Are we escaping or addressing the problem.

As of Jan 2011 my position is somewhere along the post-structuralist  post-marxist continuum?.  I am realising the importance of Foucault's contribution, the  de-centering of the self, and the focus on discourse(ref). However I feel a sticking point is in the capital aspect when it comes to real change, the dominant discourse always seems to be bounded driven/limited by capital and capital funded institutions and experts (operating in a falsely closed economic system (ignoring externalities)) , so I have to remember Marx.   Also Foucaults methodology (geneology)  seems somewhat obscure (Denzin and Lincoln p456) His initial works denying agency and only his later works  pointing in that direction.

Habermas, in offering a critique of Instrumental rationality, and it's extension to a  theory of Communicative and Strategic Discourse,  extending rationality (via a meta-rational discussion)(ref), is important to me.  Deleuze offers some inclusive / meta- concepts? that could enable the rescue of/way out from?  post-structuralism re its flat plane  vulnerability to colonisation by the discourses of the 'system' and a focus on what I assume are the inevitable binary aspect of language and concept, and its digital representations/ or maybe point the way to extending representation to more inclusive concepts/modes?

Derrida (Deconstruction) is another option, in that  he attempts to extend rationality to be more inclusive(ref), this could be applied to  concepts of Random Expressive Flow. (examples of deconstruction in this area need to be reviewed)

Post-Human? and Performative may need to be included

Edwards R (forthcoming). Theory Matters: Representation and Experimentation in Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory.

Nichols, S(1988). "The Posthuman Manifesto

----------------

Nov 2010

My stance is evolving, I now see my intitial intention to utilise methods  from Personal Construct Psychology  could be argued to be somewhat biased to an agency approach (Re structure) ...  and the focus on of a  'centered self'  needs to be questioned . Although I consider the 'persistant self' to be a an imposed  ideological construct , I realise that perhaps the focus should be discourse communities and language games. I am  not sure  however  that I agree with the "flat plane of discourses" rather seeing a hierachy of potential influences. The issue of the performative (Butler) and its values in relation to "empirical"  knowledge and pragmatic approaches remains central. re the process of interpellation in the context of Instrumental rationality, expert interests and the creative value systems of the performative community..

The flat plane seems to stem from a digital ontology made up of absolute distinctions. c.f an ontology that acknowledges our wholistic,  fractal nature, a level of shared indentity - communion 

------------------

Criteria

Re my choice of approaches (philosopy, methodology, contexts), here I will identify the criteria by which to evaluate them. I am concerned with exploring individuals concepts in relation to their creative expressive confidence in the context of the presumed (by me) potential of self-organising nature of complex systems on one hand  and restrictive ideological forces on the other ; hence I am concerned with psychological, humanistic issues,  epistemological issues - .  I am also concerned with individuals awareness of whether the perspectives they hold are natural or socially imposed  hence also normative issues (inherited norms and values) (ideology). I am also concerned with freedom of  identification.

Epistemological Issues: Clarity: It is essential the methods I choose make a point of making assumptions explicit, including their own(that are not interested in practising obscuration for whatever reason) as I see this as fundamental to the academic exercise, that address undecidabillity and the excluded middle, especially in the context of Union/Distinction. (the academic exercise is based on privileging Distinction over Union, I expect the methods I choose to take this bias into account). (also in the case of instrumental knowledge/performative (clarify)  Closure: that the complex issue of the closure in the context of post empirical 'pragmatism' and the potential forces of  instrumental rationality are addressed. ie closure (ref  definition   (re: competing claims on what is warrentable knowledge Hammersley - Kuhn Feryabend choice pragmatic c.f epistmological 17 Hammersley Bryman)

Humanistic/Structural : I take a position that allows for the potential of the subject to actively choose a perspective on their identification and focus (text) (Barthes)(c.f Kelly : Constructive Alternativism) while acknowledging the potential of Structural forces (interpellation (Althuser) . Instrumental Rationality Habermas, Performativity Lyotard) to limit  and direct their potential  choice .

Previous: My theoretical stance is currently as follows:

I agree with Habermas (Layder pp235) on the need for a Grand Narrative  of  Communicative Rationality (Meta language)
(ie  a rational attempt at establishing agreement on mutual {sustainable) perspective, values and actions.)

and protecting this discussion from any imposed divisive power of  Expert interests (Capital) (Efficiency(Lyotard))(Instrumental Rationality)  (problem inversion)(and their language games (both Performatitive(Arts), and Representational ('Science'))

Hence I deny Lyotard and Foucaults attack on "Grand Narratives" (they defeat themselves due to the fact that their attack is itself a grand narrative) 

I do accept  performative (See Butler) post-modern space, as a  space of freedom that may be accessed via certain postmodern performative  techniques... perhaps some aspects/advocates  of postmodern theory are concerned with creating and maintaining these performative spaces and as such necessarily detaches itself from representational and critical stances...

I believe this and the techniques of access to the performative need to be de mystified ("Random expressive Flow" being an attempt)