Revisiting “Fred Newman and the Practice of Method”
5087
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-5087,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.0.1,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1200,qode-theme-ver-29.4,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_bottom,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.8.0,vc_responsive

Revisiting “Fred Newman and the Practice of Method”

Revisiting “Fred Newman and the Practice of Method”

That’s the title of an invited address I gave in 2011 at the Third International Academic Conference on Contemporary Capitalism Studies in Hangzhou China, just three months after Fred Newman passed away. Today, my colleagues and I are in the early stages of designing some kind of video documentary of Fred, and so we’re (so far randomly) steeping ourselves in his substantial body of therapeutic, political philosophical and cultural work. That’s how come I revisited Fred Newman and the Practice of Method,   the talk I gave more than a decade ago.

I invite you to read it in the spirit and activity of my final words to the Hangzhou audience:

“Fred Newman was thrilled when I told him I was invited to speak to you. He died before he and I could talk about what I might say to you, and I feel that loss. But in keeping with his life-long practice, I think he would be most interested in your responses, for it is in the conversation we create together that we have the possibility of becoming. What we become is up to us.”

2 Comments
  • loisholzman
    Posted at 00:01h, 19 January

    Thanks, Jill. Wonderfully playful and meaningful phrases!

  • Jill Battalen
    Posted at 20:37h, 18 January

    Loving and so lovely, Lois. Right on!! Thanks for sharing with us now –more than 10 years later.. Yes, and “it is in the conversation we create together that we have the possibility of becoming. What we become is up to us” – including less drama, and more theatre; blossoming imagination; & reimagining; unknowability and caring curiousity;. Imagine that we can get rid of ‘the box’, because we can;t get rid of the box actually.

Post A Comment