Re: ongoing

From: Rosa Graciela Montes (rmontes@siu.buap.mx)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2000 - 10:25:25 PST


On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> Judy wrote, in part:
>
> Insofar as we are, at any moment, fortunate enough to know a position of
> relative power, at least in discourse, we can presuppose our own
> powerfulness, which is 'real' at that moment; WE are comfortable, we do not
> see cause to adjust our talk, and we resent the imposition of someone else's
> discomfort. What do you think?
>
> I think this sounds very much to me like issues Rosa wrote about a couple
> of notes back.
> mike
>

Wow, this is difficult to address because there's so many different angles
and issues that have been discussed, that I see as important, but that I
am afraid to touch because it would be, as the saying in Spanish goes
"sticking my finger into the fan".

I've been talking about "addressivity". The quote cited above gives me
footing to touch on two related issues, "participation frameworks" and
"audience design".

Judy mentions one particular stance that could be taken to participation:
if I am speaking from a position of power, I don't see the need to adjust
my speech to others. There's another quote that is relevant for me [Paul,
I'm going to take a snippet from one of your messages and hope that I
don't totally decontextualize you]:
>I guess what I'm
>trying to say is that I shouldn't have to worry so much about how other
>people interpret what I say given that they might not be part of the
>specific audience to which my remarks are really relevant.

Both of these pieces speak of adjusting to the "intended" other and I
think that what we're all, in various ways, trying to delimit is who that
other may be ("participation framework") and how much we're willing to
adjust ("audience design"). Actually, how much we're willing to adjust
will result in modifying the roles of others in the participation
framework. By my vocatives, by the way I refer to topics, by the
clarifications, explanations or paraphrases I'm willing to give, I can let
"overhearers" know that I'm regarding them as potential participants.
Conversely, by selecting my addressees narrowly, I may be relagating some
participants to the role of audience and letting them know that I've
stopped considering them "legitimate", not even peripherally.

In a different cultural trajectory, audience design is taken into account
within the discussion of creating ZPDs. It's [I can't find a good word in
English, sorry] "sobresaltante" (something that makes you sit up with a
startled face), startling, that's it ... it's a little bit startling when
people who take the "goodness" of ZPDs as a cultural given say or imply
that it's the "novices" responsibility to create their own space if they
feel left out. Have I been misunderstanding ZPD's all along? ;-)

I think it's unfortunate that the current situation (euphemism :-) )
has been defined constantly as a struggle.

Here's how I see it.

One set of voices says let's explore the tensions on the list that have
arisen out of the confrontation of different cultural backgrounds,
different theoretical stances, different discourse styles.

Another set says let's discuss dialectics and the possibility or
impossibility of arriving at synthesis on the face of antithesis.

The first set says, what we'd like to do is explore the ideas we have
formed of "community" on the list, and the practices we engage in that may
afford lesser or greater participation by others.

The second set says, what we'd like to do is discuss those topics that are
relevant to our expertise such as the definition and dynamics of
"communities of practice" (COPs), issues of "legitimate peripheral
partcipation" (LPP) and the establishment of ZPD's.

Are the concerns so different?

--Rosa

PS. I don't mind abbreviations such as LPP and so on. They DO, to my mind
represent a certain register, but the "shortening" of forms of
referring seems to be important and a natural outcome of the establishment
of common ground within a community.

I don't like APA style and fortunately don't have to submit to it, hence
lots of "...".



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:09 PST