Don,
I think the genesis that YE describes in an earlier chapter is the important
direction to look when trying to describe what "community" might be within a
fully developed CHAT model. There he uses an evolutionary perspective and
talks about the transition out of "the general structure of the animal form
of activity" with its two sides/elements of "social life" and "collective
survival": the base vertices of the triangle (rules/norms and division of
labor) emerge with the introduction of the tool in the process of the third
side/element: individual suvival. The consequence of this long, long
process of evolution (4 million years?) is the emergenge of division of
labor/community/rules -- In Figure 2.5 the "population/community" is still
represented at the point where "community" appears in the standard triangle
representation.
I don't know how familiar you are with the sociological literature extending
back at least to Tonnies in the 19th century who introduced the concepts of
"Gemeinschafft" and "Gessellschafft" which ordinarily were translated as
community and association or Marx's use of 'gattungwesen' to discuss the
primal communal collectivity. Community has long been distinguished in the
sociological literature as describing human interactions in which hierarchy
is subordinated more the "being together" than the "surviving together"
which in societies with division of labor usually implies hiearchies of one
kind or another. Hierarchy and division of labor in which roles tend to
replace direct, ongoing, creatively established in each moment relations.
The realm of actions and operations. In fact it's usually a blend of the
more impersonal "gesellschafft" with the "face-to-face" that we seem to
encounter although both poles also exist purely.
As to the difference between those collectivities in which there is no
direct relationship between the individuals that make up the collectivity;
e.g., the people waiting in their cars at a stop light, caught in a traffic
jam on the freeway, standing in a line at the check out stand at the super
market, etc. I've always found Sartre's discussion of seriality and its
transition to group (Critique of Dialectical Reason; Hazel Barnes book gives
an excellent overview) most useful. There Sartre explores how such groups
as are defined by seriality -- given a position not through a direct
relationship to others in the collectivity -- can become transformed into
groups precisely when contradictions reach a point at which each isolated
individual in the serial collectivity realizes that he or she does in fact,
on the basis of a common situation, constitute a group with a common
situattion and object; i.e., the formation of a group subject. Sartre's
examples and explorations of these processes are quite fascinating. I think
they could be presented within the framework of expansion since the
transition from serial groups to groups-for-themselves certainly fits within
YE's description of expansion, especially in the paper on the
"Borderliners". More simply one could consider how groups often emerge out
of serial collectivities when any kind of crisis affects them in such a way
as to bring forth the recognition of a common identity, through the
identification of a common object that defines their individual and
collective situations at the same time, and defines their time as collective
well; e.g., when any natural disaster strikes. Not unsurprisingly, it is
in these contexts that HEROES make their presence felt and later these
HEROES serve to embody the community ideals, etc. - a community which might
not even have existed as such before the crisis that led to its formation
out of a serial collectivity.
Just some thoughts.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Cunningham, Donald <cunningh@indiana.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: LBE and 'community' category
> Boy, Bill, this is exactly what I mean. What you describe sounds more
like
> a committee than a community to me. I guess I have been reading far to
much
> into the concept of community in CHAT. Time to re-structure!
>
> djc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@lesley.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:35 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: LBE and 'community' category
>
>
> It was a quick note and not well explained, but you have caught me in the
> middle of adapting the model -- work in progress. I don't actually use
the
> word 'group'. The way I am adapting the model, is to think of the
> 'community' category as a way to capture the next level up in the
hierarchy,
> and hence the next level of analysis. The hierarchy is the way we, who
are
> within the system, characterize the organization of our institution, for
> example the level of accountability. So for example, a course is taught
> here within a program (or 'division'), so the triangle represents more or
> less well, the system of the course (I'm refering to a particular
section --
> not the generically designed 'course', but one taking one semester and
> enacted by an ensemble of students and an instructor). A triangle may
> represent one section of the science course in the elementary program.
>
> 'community' within that triangle captures how that course is woven into
the
> next level up the hierarchy, i.e the program in which the course is
taught.
> An instance of this level is the elementary education program. A second
> triangle represents the program, and in turn its community category
> capturing the next level up on the hierarchy of the school, i.e school of
> education. The Sch. of Ed. is related in turn, through community in its
> triangle to the university. The model is iterative and it scales.
>
> Community as I have begun to apply it, can be thought to be fairly broad
at
> any level, and indeed, for any course, there is sometimes a group of
> instructors who irregularly meet, (subject category in the triangle the
next
> level up) and who could be considered part of the program 'community' for
> any instance of teaching the course. But the instructors do meet
> irregularly, and, it is plausible that using an adaptation of Barker's
> interdependence rating that they do not contribute as heavily to shaping
any
> instance of teaching a course as do other aspects of the
> 'community'-become-activity-system of the program. But keeping
'community'
> more or less confined to those within the university, school, program for
> each of their embedded levels, keeps the analysis fairly neat. And it is
> after all a model, just a model, to capture the complexity and
> interrelatedness, and non-linearity of cause and effect within the
> institution. What I mean by 'more or less' is that we must address state
> mandates for teacher competencies, and so the state, outside the
university,
> contributes to 'rules'. An exception to a clean model.
>
> bb
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bill, what criteria did you use to judge some group to be a community? I
> >assume, in asking this, that not all groups or collectives are
communities.
> >Is that a valid assumption?
> >
> >djc
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu]
> >Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:29 PM
> >To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >Subject: LBE and 'community' category
> >
> >
> >Just a quick comment, Don, about the category 'community' and the
triangle.
> > I'll be doing a presentation in DC at the end of the month about the
> >systemic changes at LU that would coincide with the adoption of computer
> >modeling practices here (for a DoE grant). The 'model' I'll be using is
> >the triangle, and 'community' allows the analysis of one triangle being
> >embedded within another,
> >
> >i.e. classroom->program->school->university
> >
> >in what might look rather fractal in form, if drawn completely. It is
not
> >the only way to break out triangles hierarchically. For example lbe
chpat
> >2 breaks them out differently into 'subject producing', 'artifact
> >producing' and so on. But the one i have chosen captures well the
> >hierarchical organizaiton of the university, and provides a way to
> >understand the points of friction and leverage within a large institution
> >that is durable in many ways. (If not the institution, then at least the
> >model is pliable.)
> >
> >Basically a small team of us have adopted this model to help us think
> >through what strategies will be proactive and effective within our
> >university setting.
> >
> >bb
> >
> >Bill Barowy, Associate Professor,
> >Lesley University, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
> >Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
> >http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>
> --
> Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
> Lesley University
> 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
> Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
> http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
> _______________________
> "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
> [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:24 PDT