[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse



Clarifying on the link, it is a cartoon in which a female stick figure is
saying "Penises: they are about this big (pretty small). Now can we please,
as a culture, move on."

The headings are a simple leap: it is necessary to be overt if you want to
indicate some form of desired behaviour.  I literally do mean that you
could put "slow" up in the subject line, indicating that you want to have a
slow conversation... and that you don't mind if you have a thread that
appears to have fallen with a thud.  The peculiarity of it is commensurate
with the peculiarity of wanting to guide others in the responses sought.

It seems to me to be a plague subject: something v. important, but also
something that can be used to accuse others on pretty much any arbitrary
basis.  No wonder people stay clear.

Sorry, again, to offend.  I really do have other things I should be doing.

Best,
Huw

On 28 October 2016 at 07:44, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> wrote:

> Annalisa, Huw,
>
> As someone that has moved from one country (Spain) to another (Norway),
> then lived a while in another (Australia), and yet a couple more years
> somewhere else (Canada), having in the way changed kindergarten, school,
> neighbourhood, hair dresser, office colleagues... I know how closely
> humour/irony and membership are connected. You really don't need to move
> across countries to know that, just try to follow any English conversation
> between professional/training pilots, or a chat between orange pickers in
> Valencia talking Spanish or Catalan (no matter what country they are from)
> while lunch during a work day, to realise that you have no clue what they
> are talking about even though they seem to be talking (and laughing) in a
> language (English, Spanish, Catalan) you think you know.
>
> When I read Huw's post, I had to do a search for almost every word he
> used, including hogging, humping, and I am still wondering whether  "SHUF"
> might refer to a command in programming that generates "random
> permutations"  (that's what I found online!). I did not know these words in
> English, and so I had to look for them. Even more embarrassing is the fact
> that, even though I know every word, I have not yet got what the squirrel
> story is about, or how it relates to the thread it was posted on... Not
> that the story is nonsense, but only that I do not (yet) belong to whatever
> history (chains of reference, whatever you'd like to call it) has brought
> it up as a sense-full story/joke/turn, etc.
>
> The thing is that humour seems to be tightly connected to the sort of
> abbreviation that Vygotsky described with regard to inner speech. As people
> get along well together, just as the 3 boys in Larry's post do, there is
> lesser need for articulation, things can be shortened, they can simply be
> suggested by a word, a gesture. As Vygotsky notes, "When the thoughts and
> consciousness of the interlocutors are one, the role of speech in the
> achievement of flawless understanding is reduced to a minimum." I love
> humour, and irony (not sarcasm, as Huw notes), and I believe they are vital
> for a healthy humanity and, again as Huw notes, to a healthy list. Through
> humour we can address challenges and paradoxes in ways that articulation
> and explicit talk simply cannot. Yet, if it is right that humour rests upon
> this competence of abbreviating, of not needing to say the unsaid to make
> it said, then there always is the risk that someone else won't hear the
> same and, worst, feel excluded, ridiculed, etc... I think those are
> occasions for articulating rather than for more abbreviation. I think that
> such occasions are important because, otherwise, we may loose highly
> interesting discussions on the historical and genetic account of the
> problem (what Annalisa and Larry have been asking for, what Huw probably is
> missing and asking for too) and how such an account may be different and
> more productive than protocolary statements of the sort of those exposed in
> the video Annalisa has shared.
>
> With all due respect,
> Alfredo
>
> PS: you can see in how much I do articulate how much of an outsider I
> feel/am, and how much work it takes for us to participate. I hope to be
> able to abbreviate a bit more at some point...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> Sent: 28 October 2016 05:24
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
>
> Thank you for the explanation.
>
>
> Why not address Huw? Why me?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:18 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
>
> Surely, Annalisa, a symbol of intimidation, rather than intimidation,
> itself.
> David
>
>