Dear all,
I have been incredibly busy over the last few days and am now off for ten
days without regular email. I'm not ignoring this discussion or offended by
anything anyone has said, just haven't had any time to write. I'll just
make two points in a desparate rush and then fly.
While Mary may make reasonable assumptions about my gender, I wonder how
she can be so sure about my - or the others on the 'rules' side of the
discussion - race or class (unless all academics are by definition middle
class, in which case the list is less divided than she states)?
I find it significant that nobody has replied directly to Philip Capper's
points about why _he_ doesn't feel part of the XMCA community (which is
just what he predicted, of course). I tend to share some of them, in that
for me XMCA is not a community that is central to my work or self-identity,
but somewhere I dip into and out of, read some interesting things,
occasionally write to, get feedback from etc. Perhaps that's why I find a
lot of the community-defining discussion is not useful.
I'll catch up with this later.
Bye for now
Bruce
On Tuesday, February 22, 2000 6:01 PM, mary bryson [SMTP:brys@unixg.ubc.ca]
wrote:
> I think it interesting how our dialogues - well, assisted monologues,
maybe,
> are dividing along lines of gender, and race, and class. Well, maybe not
> "interesting" but entirely to be expected. And so on one side we have
folks
> who want to approach this rationally, with rules, and on another, folks
who
> are pushing into the soggy murky areas of authentic expression of
> contradictions and feelings and complexities of engagement in social
spaces
> - and there are other sides, of course, to this multi-sided entity that
we
> are.
>
> And btw (by the way), the specific rules listed will not advance our
> dilemmas one iota, because who are we going to haul in to determine how
we
> will evaluate a message for its sexism, racism, and other important
'isms?
> Solomon is not available at the present time.
>
> But people, smart people, have written about these problems, and maybe we
> could think of reading, collectively, a set of 2 or 3 articles dealing
with
> precisely the kinds of dialogue we are having:
> something by Chandra T Mohanty on liberalism and equity and
> institutionalized discrimination
> something by Ellsworth on difference/s
> something by Burbules on dialogue across differences
>
> something you might suggest ......?
>
> My only plea, here, would be that we not see this this talking as
> "uninteresting" or "a waste of time" or "off topic - can't we just go
back
> to the good old days?".
>
> mary
> --
> Dr. Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education, UBC
> GenTech Project http://www.shecan.com
> Curriculum Vitae http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.html
>
> To alter efficacy-based futility requires development of competencies and
> expectations of personal effectiveness. By contrast, to change
> outcome-based futility necessitates changes in prevailing environmental
> contingencies that restore the instrumental value of the competencies
> people already possess. Bandura-- 1977
>
>
> ----------
> >From: "Nate Schmolze" <schmolze@students.wisc.edu>
> >To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >Subject: RE: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions
> >Date: Tue, Feb 22, 2000, 7:19 AM
> >
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > A few comments on your message. But, first before the month is done,
I'd
> > like to thank you for your detailed responses to myself, Paul, and
Judy.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Robinson [mailto:bruce.rob@btinternet.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 8:31 AM
> > To: 'xmca list'
> > Subject: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions
> >
> > Bruce said:
> >
> > "that there are a small number of basic rules that should be taken as
> > guidelines by everyone and enforced by the listowner, but that beyond
those
> > rules trying to enforce a particular
> > tone, form of greeting etc is counter-productive".
> >
> > I think your right, but I have not seen the discussion as attempting to
> > propose a cook book of any sorts. What I have taken thus far from the
> > discussion is increasing a basic set of rules would be
counterproductive,
> > but that does not mean introspection or reflection does not have an
> > important function. I would also caution an interpretation that
situates the
> > current discussion in the Daly thread. Similar tensions and themes go
way
> > back and are what in some ways motivated the seperate x-lists.
Historically
> > such tensions cause an outburst, collective silence, and then business
as
> > usual. I think there is a sense by some on the list that they don't
want to
> > go down that road again. So, the introspection that you find so
frustrating
> > can be seen by some as breaking the historic pattern mentioned above.
> >
> > Bruce said:
> >
> > "On my second point, I think we should register that on XMCA things do
work
> > out pretty well most of the time. It is never going to be possible to
rule
> > out all inequalities of power, authority etc on an email list existing
in an
> > unequal world, but one thing that does strike me about XMCA is that
graduate
> > students can join the list and have their work taken seriously in the
spirit
> > that others may learn from it; that there's a generally tolerant
atmosphere
> > and that ideas tend not to be dismissed out of hand. That's not bad."
> >
> > I think what you say here is important, and that is also why many see
the
> > introspection as important. You are of course right that it is not
possible
> > to rule out all inequalities of power, but inequalities can be either
> > implicit or explicit. In this sense the questions Kathie asked in a
prior
> > message can not be resolved by creating rules, but only through
> > introspection.
> >
> > I think there are two ways to look at introspection or reflection; its
> > purpose for something else (e.g. finding contradictions in the system
to be
> > resolved), and its importance for itself. The latter of course also
changes
> > the system but not systematically or directly. In general, I would
situate
> > the current introspection with the latter in that it is seen as
important,
> > good, and useful in itself not necessarily to resolve some
contradiction
> > within the system.
> >
> > NATE
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:12 PST