I'm getting a bit dizzy by the dual (at the least) functions of our
discussion of mailinglist silence -- on the one hand as a challenge for me
to go another round in articulating the interdependences of different modes
of participation or non-participation in the activity (I have yet to read
Wenger, Kevin), and on the other hand as another round of metacommunication
on the local practices here on the XMCA. I think these self-reflections are
a necessary part of community building as it is practiced in the local
culture of this virtual setting -- there has never been any long and
detailed codex of Xlist-specific netiquette rules, although there used to
be a more informative Welcome Message than the one that has followed XMCA
subscription for several years now. This old welcome DID contain some words
on "silence", and the main golden rule of BEING CONSIDERATE:
***************** From the XLCHC Welcome Message in 1991-1995 **************
-- If the past is a guide to the future, some messages will create
considerable discussion, some will be met by silence. Silence is not a
reliable indicator of the message's value to the group: it may be that
there is general agreement, but nothing to add, or it may be that people do
not feel competent to add to the discussion and do not know how to ask a
good question about it. In such cases one can try again or simply wait to
see what develops.
A general norm for the system is that messages are informal communications,
that have sometimes been referred to on XLCHC as "half baked" messages,
which it is hoped, will be baked up into fine food for thought as a
consequence of the interactions that occur subsequently. From time to time,
XLCHC messages appear in articles or books, with some form of
acknowledgment of their source. The norm in this case, as in daily use of
the system, is to be considerate of one's colleagues --
****************************************************************************
I _think_ that a somewhat more updated and informative Welcome has now at
long last made it through the activity system of channel maintenance. But
even so I see a certain measure of recurring, collaborative re-negotiation
of communicative practices as a good thing -- not a waste of time, but
something that may provide the re-centering for continued joint activity.
Productive, as Kathryn writes.
I have also always found the Xlist practice of juxtaposing and con-texting
theory, research, and personal experience in the discussions very
enrichening -- and so appreciate it very much in the recent voicings of the
meaning of silence, too. Especially I appreciate how in writing from
experience contributors submit their vulnerability to the readers of the
list. Peg Syverson (in her 1994 analysis of the Gulf War conversation)
observes how even in the supposedly "disembodied" discourse arena of a
mailinglist, embodied experience is invoked to structure the dynamics of
relationships. As Paul notes, the theme of silence and lurking always tends
to generate interest and often conflict. Talking about our various modes of
participation cuts close to the skin of our involvement in whatever it is
we are doing here, and whatever it is doing to us... (yes, Phillip: in THAT
sense always "ad hominem/feminam" -- although this was not, I think, how
Mike used it in the Daly debate).
List participation (like participation in other activities) brings the
risks of being rewarded by intimidation, disempowerment, silencing,
dismissal, extinction -- voices speaking us powerless -- (Joanne, Vincent,
Kevin, Sara, Bill, Judy, Kathie...) -- as well as the opportunities of
finding an intellectual and emotional haven, relief from isolation,
creative gifts to culture (Vera, Sara, Nate...). It is part and parcel of
Xlist self-reflection that contributors spell out this dictionary.
Contra-dictionary.
I am keenly aware that pressures of time (Joanne, Vera, Jennifer,
Genevieve, Donna, Linda, Mike) and the perceived pace of the conversation
that makes "late" contributions seem to run the risk of being redundant or
ill-timed (Linda, Vera, Kathryn). The first aspect, the time pressures of
our lives, is one that makes mailinglist "talkativity" more of a research
problem than mailinglist "silence". The second aspect is, I think, one
where we could perhaps work a little more actively on our local practices
in the direction of... not exactly slowing things down, but of producing
practices that more actively support our dwelling with aspects of issues
and the return to strands left dangling a few days ago. When it comes to
requests for readings, it may not be very useful to provide info that has
been already provided. But when it comes to the phenomenon that "they have
already said what I wanted to say, and so much better, at that", I'm not so
sure that it wouldn't be quite beneficial many times to have some more
variations on the theme even if they're close. We should perhaps not be all
that driven by the whip of originality? (The anticipation of one's message
being "redundant" is one of the commonly occurring reasons for opening a
posting with an apology, so this, too, is not a new idea for THIS thread :-)
Gary: you have me wondering what a trappist mailinglist would be like. I
mean, I should think there are all kinds of shared silence that may be
valuable, but a mailinglist instituted to distribute silence -- would it BE
there at all?
Lastly, I have, of course, many experiences of my own that confirm that
active participation is not necessarily visible on the list at the time it
occurs, nor very directly visible at ANY later time. (The one thing I did
not recognize on Kevin's list was the category of "semi-coded messages to
known readers who never post". From where I am I simply do not have a lot
of opportunity to know readers who never post -- with the exception of
people I'd rather reach in other ways, anyway. In Swedish...). But there
are also visible traces of these "invisible margins" of the activity system
floated into the shared space. Sometimes by a mistake of addressing. Other
times by self-report in our recurring meta-rounds, or by passing mention in
other contexts. Still, I agree with those of you who suspect that the modes
of invisible, more or less "active" list participation may be, in Paul's
words, "somewhat more central to the existence of the multilogue than it
appears on the surface". I think the inverse-power-law distribution of
messages over contributors points in this direction... and it strikes me
here that Luiz' abstract model of the "whole and the missing part" might be
useful for further articulation of the function of silent (invisible-
in-the-public-channel) participation in relation to visible,
written-and-posted participation.
Eva
PS. Joanne, Kathie, do you have any references to your research for me?
At 12.08 +0100 99-09-10, Joanne Larson wrote:
>My research focuses on participation in classrooms, specifically on changin=
g
>participation. I pay particular attention to overhearer participation
At 08.26 -0600 99-09-10, Katherine Goff wrote:
>i am looking closely at silence in my research right now and am coming to
>understand how silence can be resistance, can feel empowering at the
>individual level (while not disrupting any structures or discourses of
>power).