Hans,
I think that you have to focus on both the perpetrator and the victim and
find out how the victim is constructed (figured) in the value system of the
perpetrator - in what way is the victim (as a homo-, bi-, trans- sexual) an
"enemy" or a threat in the perpetrator's figured world.
And since you have to change the behavior of the perpetrator, you will have
to change the relationships - real or figured - between the perpetrator and
the victim. If the relationships between them are figured as relationships
between enemies, you have to see what would be a mediating tool to change
them.
When I think of the "triangle" of the relationships between the individual,
the society and the object, I always think that any one of the three
relationships between the points in the triangle is mediated by the third
one. So it is not just that the subject-object relationship is being
mediated by the society (through various tools), but also - it is the
subject-society (or sometimes individual-individual) relationship that is
being mediated by an "object" - or in this case by an "objective" which can
be shared. The objective becomes a topic of mutual interest!! (either in a
positive or in a negative sense). All this is pretty abstract until you find
more details about concrete nuances of the "figured worlds" of both the
perpetrators and the victims. In a sense, you will have to find out what are
the "rules" or "norms" in the world of the perpetrators, which the
"enemy"/"victim" is breaking and is therefore being perceived as
sufficiently 'different' to be dehumanized and attacked. Then you have to
think whether you want to, on one hand, to design strategies to change these
"figured" rules for the "perpetrator"/"defender" - if this is possible, or,
on the other, to change the "image" of the victims so that they stop being
perceived as a threat. The combinations are numerous.
The point is - you have to look at how the activity systems of the "victims"
and the "perpetrators" intersect, and to design a NEW mediating activity
which would change their relationships.
In the last ISCRAT in Amsterdam, I presented a paper in which I started to
add other dimensions to the "triangular" relationships of the Activity
Theory model. I added some elements of the theory of drama by Anne
Ubersfeld. To my analysis of metaphors in political speeches regarding
conflicts. Using Ubersfeld's theory of drama, one can talk about 6 types of
"actants" (forces of action) in any dramatic situation [including conflicts
(a situation constructed in terms of a conflict)]. Those 6 are "the
protagonist" (subject/center of the attention); "the desired object"; "the
antagonist"; "the ally"; "in the name of whom/what" (the action is taken);
and "for the sake of whom/what (the action is taken)". The last two forces
may be impersonated as individuals but may be abstract ideas or values. For
instance: "for the good of the people", or "in the name of God". Each of
these actant forces can be expressed through one or more characters in a
dramatic situation., There are multiple variations of how the actants "fall"
onto individual characters. Dramatic relationships which are developed
between the characters in each figured world depend on a multitude of
particular circumstances.
I have just started this line of analyzing and it looks very promising -
especially to conceptualize the meaning of conflict of any scale. Activity
theory gets really operational when you start analyzing the becoming of each
"actant" force through the system of dramatic relationships.
It seems to me that your analysis of the "victim of a hate crime against
sexually different people" needs to capture the tensions between groups of
people, and to understand their meaning in order to create effective
mediating tools to change these relationships.
Ana
----------------------------------------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
home: 1-215 - 843 - 2909
mobile:+267 -334-2905
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Knutagård [mailto:hans.knutagard@ynic-scc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:11 PM
To: xmca mailing list
Subject: How can I use CHAT?
Hi friends,
I have just became project director for a non-violence project, trying to
prevent homophobic threat, violence and harassment. The target group are
homo-, bi- and transsexual persons in the Skane region (south part of
Sweden, where Malmo is located). Co-operation partners is The HIV Prevention
and Health Promotion Agency and the Police.
Last time I focused on the perpetrator, how to prevent her/him of doing
crime. Now - and this is harder - the focus is on the victim, how she/he can
prevent related homophobic hate crimes.
Last time I could use Engeström triangle about activity, since the
perpetrator is actually involved in an activity. But - and here my brain is
limited - how can I use the triangle or activity for people being victim? Or
do I have to have an other perspective from the beginning?
I think for the perpetrator the triangle could be very useful, since you
could understand the homophobic emerging from the social cultural context.
But - and again I am trying to force my thinking how to swift to a victim
activity system?
If anybody have a thought on this subject I would be grateful.
All the best
Hans Knutagard
Your man in the cyber world struggling with prevention questions.
-----
SCC-Social Change Center & YNIC
Mr. Hans Knutagard, consultant
Exercisgatan 13, floor 3, apt 11
211 49 Malmö, SWEDEN
Ph/fax +46-40-23 21 01
email: hans.knutagard@ynic-scc.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PDT