From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
Subject: BHA: Re: Thoughts on ((T)D))CR and Kulchur
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:45:08 -0400


Aside from adding my "Hear, hear!" to Gary's wish for more CR/DCR attention
and work on cultural matters, I also tend to agree with him that CR/DCR can
contribute in more or less "substantive" ways, beyond strictly
underlaboring.  Moreover, I don't really see original CR being limited for
this purpose.  Then again I'm one of those who sees more continuity than
change in the movement from CR to DCR, though the does add to the array of
tools and questions.  My own research -- on some specific theatrical
activities in a particular historical context -- was heavily informed by CR
(and was done before DPF appeared).  Basically CR/DCR offers a kind of
methodological backbone and to some extent an interpretive schema,
particularly regarding such issues as generative mechanisms and structures,
and the dynamic and rhythmic relationship among social structures, agency,
and culture.  For example, where a certain kind of coarse materialism
reductively attributes cultural activities to cultural or political forces,
and a certain kind of idealism looks strictly at relations among signs, CR
(even in its original form) requires working with both and attending to
their complex interactions.  So I think it actually draws something like a
map (or part of a map anyway), rather than simply telling us how to draw
maps.

As for FEW's contribution to the development of a (T)(D)CR analysis of
culture, aside from broaching some valid and interesting questions, I feel
it is of little or no value.  Possibily even a detraction.  (Sorry, Gary.)

Warmly, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---