[Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

[Charles Bazerman]

To be clear. Both Sullivan and Vygotsky believed in and acted on positive
regard. Sullivan, however, examined anxiety as part of the self-system.
BTW, as most of you know, Vygotsky was interested in the depth psychology
of Freud and Adler, though he did not agree with everything they saidl
Chuck
----
History will judge.


On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:10 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
wrote:

> Hi Annalisa,
>
>
> thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to
> this list.
>
>
> But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what
> you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't
> say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is
> precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes,
> I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid
> assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not
> want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally"
> etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts
> here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even
> when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that
> the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but
> about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus
> on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object,
> you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared
> goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular,
> then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to.
>
>
> So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several
> occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their
> concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also
> blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post
> that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been
> "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was
> never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all,
> despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot
> rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared
> project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up
> and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may
> have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I
> bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions,
> another related example is research about teachers asking questions with
> the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to
> make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not
> think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for
> not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I
> heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this.
>
>
> I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when
> I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember
> occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention
> for was white and male, while other female participants (including
> yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In
> those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most
> relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not
> complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too.
> Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases
> when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing
> and orienting to our shared project and not any personal.
>
>
> ​Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing
> these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing
> dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have
> contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for
> that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly
> hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the
> trans-actional mode of collaboration.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alfredo
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> *Sent:* 13 August 2018 08:52
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day
>
>
> Alfredo,
>
>
> Thank you for your post.
>
>
> I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a
> compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not
> admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way
> that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using
> "people" to address him.
>
>
> If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm
> my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I
> maintain it has to do with gender.
>
>
> If I may quote his post:
>
> "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don’t
> know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don’t understand, or
> take real people and turn them into philosophical examples."
>
>
> I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to
> Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive
> aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It
> lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot
> of assumptions. QED.
>
>
> Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege
> to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It
> was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what
> I'd said.
>
>
> Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias,
> Alfredo.
>
>
> Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended
> him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that
> would have been something entirely different, which is always an option
> when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one
> made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I
> received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to
> call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and
> that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place
> for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire
> to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't
> let anyone talk to you that way.
>
>
> There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do
> not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well...
> how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he
> have the right to make those assumptions about me?
>
>
> If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell
> out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to
> that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of
> everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am
> responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person
> calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out
> of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation
> about jackasses all about me.
>
>
> A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think
> quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that
> conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive,
> and I hope respectful, I am addressing it.
>
>
> I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were
> it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it
> certainly wasn't for *my* benefit.
>
>
> Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender
> sensitivity does not trump what he said?
>
>
> That is a real question.
>
>
> It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that
> happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members
> not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing
> because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to
> only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of
> worldviews.
>
>
> Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change.
> Especially with novices, as they are our future.
>
>
> I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly
> positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does
> *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand).
> However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is
> my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it
> tedious.
>
>
> It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that
> is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post
> whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal
> with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel
> on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't
> deal with it from my point of view, did he?
>
>
> If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include
> understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the
> pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write
> that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking
> role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there
> before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if
> that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I
> don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or
> offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out
> loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office.
>
>
> To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been
> better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to
> discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making
> recommendations to me that were not solicited.
>
>
> I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a
> boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to
> do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post.
> I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here.
>
>
> I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest
> in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the
> dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage
> and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable.
>
> Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you
> also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the
> conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was
> following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up
> the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it.
>
> You say:
> "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true
> motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help
> when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly
> a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would
> treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a
> better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing
> your integrity or identity. "
>
> I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering
> cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me
> down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your
> accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your
> intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have
> addressed me in the past.
>
> You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should
> or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to
> converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your
> intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that.
>
> I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type
> of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also*
> no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated
> others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an
> advertisement for "an eye for an eye."
>
> Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had
> very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was
> peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I
> wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to
> positive regard*.
>
> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>
> If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with
> positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no
> one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we
> might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the
> original post subject title.
>
> Kind regards unconditionally,
>
> Annalisa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/dfe40ac9/attachment.html