Recently, while sifting through some old files, I stumbled upon a document I wrote back in July 2000 titled “A Pragmatic View of Value“. This paper marked my initial attempt to articulate a line of thinking that I hoped would form the foundation of my PhD. It was an ambitious project, one that aimed to navigate the complex terrain of cultural theory, value, and methodology without falling into the traps of ideological determinism or the limitations of discourse analysis.
At the time, I found myself grappling with the challenge of defining a methodology that did not rely heavily on ideological assertions. The prevailing academic climate was saturated with approaches that viewed every social process as ideologically grounded, and while these perspectives offered valuable insights, they often felt too deterministic for the kind of nuanced, pragmatic analysis I was seeking. I wanted to explore value in a way that acknowledged its contingent and relational nature without being constrained by rigid ideological frameworks.
The document itself is an exploration of the concept of value, rejecting positivist and essentialist notions that seek to establish fixed, objective criteria for what is valuable. Instead, it argues for a pragmatic approach, one that recognises value as something that is not inherent in objects or ideas but is instead constructed through social interactions, historical contexts, and discursive practices. This perspective draws on the work of thinkers like Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, who challenge traditional, foundational concepts of truth and value.
One of the key assertions of the paper is the rejection of discourse as a singular means of understanding value. While discourse analysis had become a dominant methodological tool in cultural studies, I found that it often led to a reductionist view of social processes, treating them as purely ideological constructs. I was searching for a methodology that could account for the complexities of social life without reducing every interaction to an expression of power or ideology.
This rejection led me to explore alternative methodologies, particularly within the social sciences. I found myself increasingly drawn to symbolic interactionism, a framework that offered a more flexible, nuanced approach to understanding social processes. Symbolic interactionism, with its focus on the meanings that individuals and groups ascribe to their actions and the symbols they use in communication, provided a way to study value as something dynamic and context-dependent. It allowed for a more interpretative, less deterministic analysis of social interactions, one that could accommodate the fluidity of meaning and the contingent nature of social life.
Reflecting on this document now, I see it as a pivotal moment in my intellectual journey. It represents the first step in what would become a broader exploration of how we can study social phenomena without being confined by ideological or discursive boundaries. While the PhD project I envisioned at the time did not come to fruition in the way I had planned, the ideas I wrestled with in “A Pragmatic View of Value” have continued to influence my thinking and work.
In many ways, this early paper set the stage for my later work in community media and social engagement. It taught me the importance of flexibility in methodology and the value of approaching social issues from multiple perspectives. As I continue to develop my ideas and projects, I carry with me the lessons learned from this first foray into academic research, always mindful of the need to balance theoretical rigour with practical relevance.
Finding this document was a reminder of the intellectual challenges I faced at the beginning of my career, but also of the progress I’ve made since then. It’s a testament to the importance of revisiting our past work, not only to reflect on how far we’ve come but also to reconnect with the ideas that continue to shape our thinking.