Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis
Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis
Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis
Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis
Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis
Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Postmodern critique[1] - Dr. Kritsonis

355

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he …

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
355
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Postmodern Critique [ a double reading of a text] 1. Read the first time to get an idea of the main ideas and points 2. Read the 2nd time with three points in mind a. what are the text’s “silences” )what doesn’t the author talk about? b. de-construction: look for the stated or implied binaries, circularities, contradictions c. genealogy-a tracing of the main ideas, their derivation-looking for the lost “field of memory” looking for a “counter memory”
  • 2. THE FUNCTION OF A BINARY <ul><li>objective </li></ul><ul><li>truth </li></ul><ul><li>science </li></ul><ul><li>subjective </li></ul><ul><li>non-truth (false) </li></ul><ul><li>non-science </li></ul><ul><li>to pre-shape the discourse, casting the alternative usually </li></ul><ul><li>in unfavorable terms (the first term in a binary is the “privileged” </li></ul><ul><li>one) used this way a binary is a “meta” imposition in a discourse </li></ul><ul><li>to create a categorical system which is not grounded empirically </li></ul><ul><li>but may be used to pre-judge empirical data-thereby limiting </li></ul><ul><li>the identification of alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>to bias a conversation to suit the one who imposed the binary </li></ul>
  • 3. circularities <ul><li>to avoid defining a term that </li></ul><ul><li>may contradict a favored </li></ul><ul><li>definition (“intelligence is whatever </li></ul><ul><li>an intelligence test measures.” </li></ul><ul><li>functions as a kind of binary, to keep arguments or counter- </li></ul><ul><li>arguments “in category” and to diminish the power of a </li></ul><ul><li>counter factual which would challenge the initial premises </li></ul><ul><li>of a line of argument </li></ul><ul><li>to present tautologies as original arguments (statements </li></ul><ul><li>true by definition) or to avoid having tautologies identified </li></ul><ul><li>as such </li></ul>
  • 4. contradictions <ul><li>a statement made in one place that is nullified by a </li></ul><ul><li>statement made somewhere else </li></ul><ul><li>shows a writer has not extended his/her line of </li></ul><ul><li>argument far enough to see that it may not support </li></ul><ul><li>counter factuals-(a contradiction is a counter factual </li></ul><ul><li>embedded in your own line of argument) </li></ul><ul><li>can discredit a line of argument by breaking off </li></ul><ul><li>a possible conclusion </li></ul>
  • 5. line of argument A History of SEX -That mitochondrial DNA and XY DNA should vary equally, but they don’t--one explanation is that fewer men arehaving sex with more women which explains the DNA lines which are at the base of the research. SILENCES- 1. Looked at only three cultures 2. What about people who had sex but didn’t produce children 3. Does it imply that half the men in history have been celebate 4. Women who want to have children 5. The Y chromosome? Absence of data.
  • 6. line of argument BINARIES 1. Monogamy vs. promiscuity (females not as promiscious as men 2. Natural equated with animal vs. unatural 3. Choosy vs. not choosy 4. Mitochrondial vs. Y chromosome CIRCULARITIES 1. Less men procreate but their genes go farther 2. In most species males want to be more promiscous than females, (homo sapies not most species) 3. Natural is to be more animal like. 4. How they are defining modern, culture, what suits them to make their point CONTRADICTION 1. 70% of “modern cultures” the women move from her native village to her husbands. Why is the men’s DNA moving farther?

×