>Indeed. And all this assumes I have "grown up" :-)
The scalpel and animation examples mean just what you say. If you look at
19th century anatomy, many people were comparing body parts they were
cutting up, and getting a picture of anatomical development that has been
added to since. This did open up the inside of the body. At the same
time, by creating a composite picture of the human body (or whatever animal
you were looking at), it also could give a falsely smooth account of
development, glossing over individual differences, for instance. One
example I like is the human skull. If you look at anatomy textbooks, the
skull is portrayed in drawing as something like a thick eggshell. This
averages out huge differences, as anyone who has ever done EEGs knows. One
neurophysiologist said to me one day that the skull's individual variations
and differences in thickness within an individual is more like the
Himalayas than a smooth eggshell shape!
The other side, looking at animation, is that you get a speeded up
(sometimes called 4-d) view of development that blurs anatomy and
physiology. When you overlay other sorts of categories at different time
scales it can be extremely odd and obscuring power-wise. So in some
anatomy programs using "virtual cadavers" for med students, you can just
push a button and get the race of your choice. That feels intutively wrong
to me.
L*
>odd jobs, community organizing, and growing up: here are a bunch of
>trajectories that are determined with respect to Leigh at very different
>timescales but all intersecting at the Moment conceptualized. Odd jobs, from
>the perspective of the working person and with respect to growing up, last
>not very long; community organizing -- well, the adult Leigh might see that
>train moving from a distance, orthogonally, or might be huffing and puffing,
>jumping back and forth, to keep both her academic and her community
>commitments moving in parallel.
>
> Occasionally I'd glance up and note that
> >the science/math train had rumbled by again. By the end of college, it
> >appeared to be entirely without entrances, as I was moving orthagonally to
> >it, not just at a different rate, but sideways.
> >
> >So a question here is: what can we say about the properties of the
> >timescale as mediating object to explain this sort of thing? Clearly
> >people can use the representation of a time scale as an object for power
> >over others, or as empowering. Anatomy is slow physiology. A scalpel may
> >illuminate or obscure this. A CD Rom with speeded up anatomical slices
> >may illuminate or obscure this. Whether illuminating or obscuring depends
> >on the ...power of those yielding these tools? ....or...?
>
>Well, this has been sitting for a while waiting for my commentary/
>paraphrase but resisting me.
>
> >people can use the representation of a time scale as an object for power
> >over others, or as empowering.
>
>I can use the scalpel as a way of illuminating the perspective that anatomy
>is slow physiology (would i then be empowering others? by making some
>knowledge available....) -- or as a way of obscuring it (and thus securing
>my hold on the knowledge, which presupposes that I have it to begin with)
>------ sorry for the literality, but thinking through different timescales
>gives me motion sickness. Is that, Leigh, in the range of what you meant?
>
> >By the way a historical footnote on boundary objects: the original work
> >on boundary objects that I did in the mid-80s grew directly out of
> >observing how two groups (clinicians and basic researchers in brain
> >research) with different time lines combined data. Clinicians canonically
> >need answers quickly and instantially; basic researchers work on a longer
> >time scale with more formal data points.
> >
> >Thanks for a great paper, Jay, and a great discussion, all.
>
>Ditto. since i think in slow motion, i'll post the rest in a follow up
>
>
>Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
>Graduate School of Education
>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>10 Seminary Place
>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183