Re: self-descriptions

Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Sat, 27 Sep 1997 09:12:07 +0200

At 21.05 +0000 97-09-26, Russ Hunt wrote, referring to the selfdescription
ritual:
>I don't think it's so nice, and I didn't like it either. It's just
>fine to have self-descriptions _available_ (on a website or archive),
>but, well, it feels to me like they should be -- sorry about going
>back to this language again -- pull technology rather than push.
>Normally -- in my experience, anyway -- someone doesn't enter a
>conversation by announcing who she is and and what she's interested
>in.

Youre right, Russ. The virtual setting that we are constructing and
collectively maintaining here at the xmca is mainly built out of textual
genres simulating a reflective but informal scholarly conversation of the
kind that in Sweden would take place in the common coffee room of the
department. Sometimes leaning towards genres of the seminar room, but
generally less combative or lecturing than those tend to be. In my
experience. And very conducive for "half-baked" ideas and a certain
playfulness. The image of Burke's parlour has cycled through our
selfreflections a number of times.

So you are quite right: the entrance ritual doesn't really fit the setting,
as our practices in the informal settings serving as templates for this
collaborative projection are NOT to step in through the doorway,
interrupting the conversations by shouting out our CV and errand.
"Embarrassment" is the effect of a mismatch between a requested behaviour
and expectations projected by the setting.

Basically I reacted as if Ellen had stepped into the coffee room where I
was immersed in a conversation, mistaking me for the person who takes the
application forms for our courses... so to her un-prefaced question I
snapped a sarcastic counterquestion. Mutual rudeness... instead of
acknowledging she was trying to have a conversation with the listserv.

At 21.05 +0000 97-09-26, Russ Hunt also wrote:
>I _never_
>read the self-descriptions -- on this or other lists. I wait to see
>if the person's going to participate, and I judge who she is and what
>her interests are by her participation.

This makes a lot of sense, I mean, it agrees well with the Burkes-parlour
template: where newcomers can hang around, checking out what goes on before
jumping in. And where you constitute yourself through your contributions to
the conversation.

I didn't use to read the selfdescriptions, but lately I have started to do
so -- mainly because WHEN people have to go through this ritual, it's kind
of nice for them to be responded to. Naturally, then I'm generally too busy
with other things to actually respond to more than a very small fraction of
what touches upon my own fields of interest. And this, naturally, is a
general phenomenon around here. So if the intention is to get newcomers
into the conversation I'd say the effect is pretty unequal. Occasionally a
selfdescription triggers a new thread of discussion. A small number get
responded to with some kind of cordial hello. But most go fairly
unattended, i.e. they don't get any public responses.

Actually, Russ, I agree that these selfdescriptions would better be
presented and kept somewhere "on the side" -- the problem is how to manage
it in a semi-automatic fashion so that it constantly corresponds to the
actual list of participants. By saying this I realize I'm setting myself up
for some community work when I get to San Diego...

Eva