[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse

[Peter Smagorinsky]

In advance, in case this note gets tagged as a fraud, I hereby certify its authenticity as a product of my own construction and submission. 

I think that Jake's point about logics had potential, but got shut down when zir (I'm using the ungendered pronoun here, per https://genderneutralpronoun.wordpress.com/tag/ze-and-zir/)  notion of logic was not accorded respect. I found the challenge to not involve an invitation to elaborate, but to put Jake's credibility on the defensive. 

At least, that's how it looked on my screen. I should say that Jake and I have been friends for a number of years, and so perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I interpreted the response as one that shuts down discussion rather than promoting it. 

And it's still a lot of white guys dominating this discussion, which I infer is not helping to promote equitable participation. I'd disagree, Mike, that no women are interested, although that's just a guess. Rather, the first set of discussants came in very quickly and remade the discussion in their own terms. I wonder if "wait time" would have produced a different dynamic and set of participants. 

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:48 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse

Which of Jake's points do you think need to be properly discussed, Peter?
And if no women are interested in entering such a discussion, other than silence, which would emphasize the problem one way, there is not alternative but for male voice to be heard.

Annalisa and Maria Cortina have had a discussion involving Alfredo, Phillip, and others that seems productive. I have deliberately abstained because I believe it would be doubly unproductive.

So, Jake, might you repeat the issues you see being avoided? Or Peter, can bring us back to the elided point?

What issues need re-considering that require our attention?

mike

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> Is it perhaps telling that Mike's observation that the xmca discussion 
> is dominated by men has largely been taken up by men? And that Jake's 
> points have been taken up, in my view, somewhat dismissively and at 
> abstract levels rather than at the immediate level at which the problem is located?
>
> As a White U.S. male, I consider myself more problem than solution, of 
> which I have none other than to try to listen. But I suspect that this 
> topic has already been shut down in terms of achieving the more 
> equitable balance across the gender and sexuality spectrum of 
> participation. The very problems identified as the topic of discussion 
> appear to me to be replicated in the discussion that has followed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ 
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of lpscholar2@gmail.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:02 PM
> To: Rein Raud <rein.raud@tlu.ee>; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < 
> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
>
> Hi Rein,
> Your question opens up a direction I want to follow in your leading 
> question.
> Using your insight on *ity* in previous posts (that have entered my 
> awareness and keep returning and *resuming* a presence in my reflections).
> We can say we are talking about masculin*ity and feminin*ity  as being 
> expressed as generalities in our cultured words and worlds.
> This involves *logic* and may include logic of feminin*ity as 
> counterparts of the logic of masculin*ity.
> This is a turn in the conversation. I would suggest we are possibly 
> turning to the ethical dimension as primary.
> This would include the general logic of (ForGiving) and also the 
> general logic of *hollowed-out* shallow neo-liberal general*ites.
>
> I will just repeat this is not expressing the image of two sides of 
> the same coin. The coin image implies two *independent* sides fused in 
> a material stratum (the coin).
> I hear the *ity* as interrelation, intertwining, chiasm, *each IN the 
> other.
> I am wondering (with Merleau-Ponty) if this theme also expresses the 3 
> aspects of the play of  activity-gap-passivity or the reverse as 
> passivity-gap-activity as playing out and being expressed in the 
> images of masculin*ity and feminin*ity.
> The breath of inspiration-gap-expiration or looking-gap-seeing.
> In the oikos realm the image of the dance of  *marriage* as ethical 
> philosophy.
> For our moment in history to *resume* these themes once again for the 
> first time.
> The mystery of the gap
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: Rein Raud
> Sent: November 3, 2016 8:05 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
>
> Jacob and Greg,
>
> Please clarify what do you have in mind when saying that “logic is 
> gendered”. In order for that sentence (or any other) to be correct or 
> incorrect you already need what I understand should be called “logic”, i.e.
> general rules for judging an argument in a context. Does “logic is 
> gendered” mean that “logic” is something that representatives of a 
> specific gender have invented f.ex. in order to subdue other genders, 
> or that each gender has its own logic?
>
> By the way, I don’t believe there are culture-independent genders, 
> i.e. it means something different to have been called “man” in ancient 
> Greece or India than f ex in the world of today, so there is certainly 
> a point in claiming that the system of genders is itself gendered, in 
> other words, what cultures have “naturalized” as divisions into 
> genders are more often than not constructions erected by a gender 
> group in order to dominate others. Such construction, I would argue, 
> can only be taken down with arguments that follow a logic which itself 
> is not gendered, because if it were, it would be a contestant in the field, not the referee.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Rein
>
> > On 03 Nov 2016, at 16:30, Jacob McWilliams <jennamcjenna@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > There's no doubt that "logic," as an outgrowth of objectivist, 
> > rationalist epistemology, is gendered--after all, if theorists wants 
> > us to believe that all _other_ epistemologies are socially 
> > constructed, then it follows that objectivism is too. And it's 
> > constructed to benefit those in power--i.e., people who think like, 
> > and
> commonly are, white men.
> >
> > Lots of feminist theorists have written about this. Donna Haraway 
> > took us on a wild ride through science's logic fetish back in the 1980s:
> > http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178066?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
> >
> > Lots of feminists have written about this. Sadly, most folks in most 
> > academic departments are appallingly unfamiliar with their work. 
> > Sadly but unsurprisingly.
> >
> > Not to beat the proverbial dead horse, but several listserv 
> > members--including me--have tried to introduce this position re: 
> > logic in prior xmca threads. The position has mostly either been 
> > ignored or loudly rejected out of hand by more vocal participants on this listserv.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Jacob McWilliams
> > Learning Sciences & Human Development Program University of Colorado 
> > Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Greg Mcverry 
> > <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I want to bring a call back to the idea of logic and gender.
> >>
> >> Someone in the thread noted that "academic discourse" wasn't about 
> >> winning but simply prevailing logic. Anna commented back you could 
> >> be logical and not be a "jerk" about it.
> >>
> >> Maybe both statements can be true.
> >>
> >> White males may not excel in this type of logic simply based on 
> >> their privilege. Though I am sure privilege plays a huge role.
> >>
> >> Could it be the Western tradition of logic is itself rooted in 
> >> gender inequality? It is a field a few thousand years old that was 
> >> made up by white men arguing "logically" with other white men. 
> >> Naturally the discourse practices would signify and reinforce 
> >> membership within these
> circles.
> >> Exclusion of underrepresented voices has influence how the concept 
> >> of "logic" has evolved.
> >>
> >> I keep thinking about "logic" and argumentation as I begin to 
> >> interact with scholars outside of the US. We have put a strong 
> >> emphasis on arguing in our
> >> K12 curriculum. Yet when I talk to people from other countries they 
> >> note a word for "argumentative writing" or "argumentation" does not 
> >> really exist in their language. Which as we know influences 
> >> thought...which influences language..and both contribute to culture 
> >> and
> activity.
> >>
> >> So could it be the gender bias that has existed in the listserv is 
> >> a symptom of stressing a definition of "logic" maybe engendered. 
> >> Notice the talk in our models of logic have been proving who is 
> >> right and who is wrong? What translation is best for example.
> >>
> >> It is one individual "proving" he is right rather than they 
> >> reaching a consensus on what is right.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:47 AM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes synchronicity is spooky. I spied this in the Guardian 
> >>> just
> now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/
> >> silicon-valley-sexism-diversity-valerie-aurora-frame-shift
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In reply to Maria-Cristina, it's difficult to have work-life 
> >>> balance when the division of the personal and the public worlds 
> >>> exists. From what is described in biased workplaces (in article 
> >>> above), it's necessary to have some sort of protective wall, if 
> >>> only to survive
> another day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The irony is that people become competitive in the work place 
> >>> because of
> >> a
> >>> perceived scarcity of resources, but in technology it seems to me 
> >>> to be a perceived scarcity of privileges. I have never understood 
> >>> how sitting at
> >> a
> >>> keyboard is somehow "hard work." I know it requires effort and
> >> intellectual
> >>> effort in particular, but it's not like working on a farm, where 
> >>> solving problems with scarce resources is always the norm. Think
> bricolage.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe this perceived scarcity is the same in academia. Having a 
> >>> worldview that the field of knowledge is infinite, seems to be, 
> >>> looking from the outside. But perhaps I am unaware of the 
> >>> bricolage people do inside the university. I do not mean to 
> >>> diminish truly hard
> work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, these resources are culled from the public world to feed 
> >>> the personal world in the end, isn't that the true motivation? To 
> >>> protect
> >> home
> >>> and hearth when we aren't talking about invading hoards on 
> >>> longboats shooting flaming arrows at our huts shouldn't carry that 
> >>> same impending fear, dread, and uncertainty. But sometimes it 
> >>> seems to feel that way,
> >> that
> >>> people behave with that same ferocity of a struggle to the death.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It is an illusion, a misperception. But this misperception has its 
> >>> apparent reality that creates real fear in people. As if their 
> >>> lives
> >> didn't
> >>> matter and unbalanced equations must be attacked with quadratic
> >> solutions,
> >>> to set the matter straight.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Instead, a shared effort is required to permit that defensiveness, 
> >>> born
> >> of
> >>> competition, to dissipate. In order to do that, people have to 
> >>> feel
> safe.
> >>> So how is safety created in the spaces? Spaces free of ridicule 
> >>> and non-acceptance. Then, isn't that what every human being 
> >>> desires and requires to flourish? Interesting that that need has no bias.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is why I admire Aurora so much. I really think that she is on 
> >>> to something.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Larry, rather than reversibility, I'd prefer receptivity or
> reciprocity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And rather than finer nature, I'd prefer true nature (with an idea 
> >>> that being competitive, biased, prejudiced, unethical etc, are 
> >>> actually artificial constructs, that when obstructions have been 
> >>> lifted, what is natural is to balance what is there (like 
> >>> homeostasis), free from hindrances.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In order for us to recognize what is fullness in ourselves, 
> >>> fullness must already be present within us, otherwise we could not 
> >>> recognize it, we wouldn't have affinity toward it. So if we can 
> >>> remove the notion of scarcity, then the fullness of who and what 
> >>> we are, which is already
> >> there,
> >>> will be evident. It will have an appearance of emerging from 
> >>> nothing, but it's really just appearing like a tree in the fog 
> >>> that was standing quiet all along, and all that was required was 
> >>> for the
> fog to lift.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I want to lastly add that I bring up demand over 
> >>> production,
> >> which
> >>> Maria Cristina had shown some interest. The idea is that we have 
> >>> demands which actually decide production, and these demands are 
> >>> socially based, because we have social natures. Even if we are 
> >>> talking about biological demands like food and shelter, early 
> >>> childcare, regardless, in those
> >> cases
> >>> there is a social aspect to them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Looking through the other end of the telescope, when we consider 
> >>> demand first rather than production, things look interestingly 
> >>> different. If we include things in demand in that exploration 
> >>> (rather than things in production), we begin to see the social 
> >>> life of things, we start to see
> >> how
> >>> these items go in and out of commodification, where objects have 
> >>> auras of value that reside outside of monetary value and markets.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Let's consider your dining room table. You bought it in a 
> >>> furniture
> >> store,
> >>> or perhaps online, or from a thrift store or garage sale, maybe it 
> >>> was a gift. But as long as you own it, you don't consider the 
> >>> market value of your dining room table, or its appreciating value 
> >>> if say it was made by a famous furniture maker where in 20-30 
> >>> years you'll see those items appraised on The Antiques Road Show; 
> >>> at least not until you decide you don't want to own it anymore. 
> >>> During that time of possession, the dining room table starts to 
> >>> have different value, a social value, which is determined by its 
> >>> demand, or should I say demand for it. It supports the family by 
> >>> providing a comfortable place to eat meals. A place for kids to do 
> >>> homework. A place to play card games. Or to cut a dress pattern 
> >>> from fabric, etc. All of these are domestic activities, but they 
> >>> have no production value in terms of
> tables. You only need one dining room table.
> >>> Still, the table will generate value in the household, because of 
> >>> the activities that the table supports, even if it is to bring 
> >>> people
> >> together
> >>> at holidays, or even if it has only sentimental value, say if the 
> >>> table
> >> is
> >>> damaged and must be repaired, or it has been moved because the 
> >>> room is being painted. This description depicts the social life of 
> >>> the dining
> >> room
> >>> table. Which is based upon its demand, not its production.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, as I said previously, my debt for these thought 
> >>> experiments comes from Arjun Appadurai. If anyone is interested.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maria Cristina makes a great point considering work life and 
> >>> living life as two types of activity systems and thinking about 
> >>> their inherent contradictions. What comes from this tension that 
> >>> transcends
> the two?
> >>> (Might this exploration echo the comparison between production and
> >> demand?)
> >>> Is Maria Cristina correct that there hasn't been much discussion 
> >>> in this area? if so, I'd like to learn more about that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Great conversations. Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Annalisa
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>