I had written: >In addition, a clarifying note: the expression of words (on
paper or in
speech or electronically) is a kind of action (social practice). There are,
however, some types of action that are more important in terms of their
impact on the historical process than others. My lecturing in the classroom,
for example, is less important than the work being done outside my office
window (at this moment) digging the foundation for a new building.<
ellen starbird asks: >>Why on earth would you think, even using your own
analysis, that words not acted on are less significant than deeds; that the
work building a building across the way is LESS significant than you class
room lecture? <<
Words that have no impact on anyone's action can't produce any art or food
or clothing. They can't produce social change. They can't further the
maintenance of the status quo. They're just hot air, like politicians'
promises (except that the latter unfortunately encourage some people to vote
for their creators). Of course, many words do make people happy, encourage
people to do art, to produce food or clothing, to change (or maintain) the
world. But those are not the words I was talking about.
On the second, it's the construction that's changing the world more than my
teaching rather than vice-versa. It's because my students don't seem
interested in anything but grades and I'm not very good at capturing their
imaginations.
BTW, I endorse what Michael Perelman said about "Consistency and Respect."
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html
"Elvis is god." -- religion for the 1990s.
