Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: January 18, 2002
Latest Update: January 18, 2002
Faculty:
jeannecurran@habermas.org
Olivier at tapcourse@yahoo.com
takata@uwp.edu

Getting the Concept Straight

Journal entry by Linda Scott

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individaul Authors, January 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

On Friday, January 18, 2002, Linda Scott wrote:

Hello Mrs.Curran,
Thanks for that tip.

After reviewing the notes and the readings over again, along with the site you referred to me, this is what I have accomplished in your class. All the concepts were interesting, but listed are three important concepts I really enjoyed.

• Adversarialism:

  Adversarialism refers to being of fear, anger and damage. Human life is based on conflicts of interest and opposition of people to each other. People are the basic survival of our people and nature and the world.

  jeanne's comments

  Linda, you need a partner to work with you. I think you may have understood adversarialism, but you are not explaining it correctly. You need to talk it over with a friend or family member until you get it straight. Look at the definition of adversarialism. Then talk about it with your friends. Then try writing it, and get your friends to read it to you out loud, so that you will hear where it doesn't make sense.

• Paradigm shift:

  Through Adversarialism, I learned that the individual can make changes.

  jeanne's comments:

  In writing social science you have to be accurate in your choice of words. You didn't learn that we can make changes through adversarialism. Adversarialism is the negative, competitive perspective in our interpersonal relationships. You learned that we can make changes through Fellman's discussion of the paradigm shift.

  Linda, I suspect that you did not actually read Fellman's book, but tried to understand this just from the summaries on the web site. That is why we assign hardcopy readings. When you read about what we discuss in class, the reading answers questions and makes it easier for you to recall the information. If you want to learn something for which you do not have the hardcopy text, you need to ask questions during the discussion, or visit us during office hours or between classes to ask those questions. Otherwise it is hard, as you are discovering here, to answer essay questions effectively. This is why we insist that you write to us. Once you put your discussion into words then we can begin to correct your understanding of the substantive material until it begins to make sense to you. That's why you need a partner to talk the concepts over with.

  Often there can be change in the paradigm (pattern, model, and plan) from adversarialism that they can route in dominant discourse.

  jeanne's comments:

  Whoa! What does that mean? Change in the paradigm [Good that you gave a definition of paradigm.] is possible. But what change is Fellman talking about? Change from the competitiveness and one-up-manship of adversarialism to the cooperation of mutuality. A partner should be able to ask you these questions, thus helping you write more clearly and effectively. Your reader doesn't often have a chance to dialog with you.

  Who's the "they" in "they can route"? And what do you mean by they can route change? Where would they want to send the change? How would they do that?

  And what does "dominant discourse" mean here? Are "they" sending something to dominant discourse? What? And how will they do that?

  Dominant discourse is when they generally know the individual and accepted explanation justification for the way things are and why they have to be that way. Gordon Fellman states this happens sudden and seldom over a time. He also call this mutuality.

  jeanne's comments

  Not a good idea to give a definition in the form, "Dominant discourse is when . . . " It would be better to say: "Dominant discourse is the generally accepted explanation that most individuals give as the justification for the way things are and why they have to be that way." Now that can be a tongue twister. That's why you need to read it out loud and share it with someone. It would also be a good idea to include that dominant discourse is the normative excpectation, what most people would answer if asked.

  Good that you cite Gordon Fellman here. He is the primary source on this issue.

  Mutuality is the opposite of opposing. It can be described by love for one another and one self. The desire to unite with one another in the world.

  jeanne's comments

  That's a pretty good definition of "mutuality," as Gordon Fellman uses the term. I think I'd try to get the idea of cooperation in there. We need to accomplish some things by working together for the common good. For humans, the community, the whole group, is an integral part of success. The individual needs the social group.

  Fellman suggested that a shift including a balance of the two paradigms (adversarialism and mutuality) could start an appreciation for each paradigm. The appreciation of such a balance at some point will be essential for our survival.
  jeanne's comments

  Good conclusion. That is precisely what Fellman suggests. But when you are writing this essay as a measure of what you have learned, it's a good idea to give a specific example, so that I can see that you are applying the concept correctly.

  Try rephrasing Fellman's conclusion: Fellman wants us to balance the aggression and competition of individual against individual by the cooperation of the group for the good of everyone. He doesn't suggest that we change to mutualiity, and give up adversarialism all together. He suggests that we need both, with a balance between the two, to satisfy both the needs of the individual and the needs of the social group.

Agency and Structural Context:

This theory explains that agency (the parent, in Joanne Carillo's example) is the power to make decisions, thereby effecting differences in our own lived reality. Agency permits us to make choices and society usually holds us responsible for those choices. Structural context forces us through its rules and regulations to conform. It is also the culture and social practices that constrain us to keep within a certain normative role. Both together are the institutional expectations and roles that help to make us who we are. An example would be if my husband did not report to duty when they called him. The US Defense Department would penalize him, such as giving him a fine and a jail sentence. This is what is known as uniformity. Being penalize for our actions. Therefore, this would put his family in constructural constraints (No income, insurance, and stability). The agency and structural context affect how we perceive our everyday lives.

jeanne's comments

This is a good conclusion, Linda. It's obvious that you have gone over the material and understood it. Some minor editing is still needed. I'll get to that shortly. But it's late tonight.

Thank you, Mrs.Curran, for all your help.

Your Concerned Student,
Linda Scott