Robin wrote:
On the other hand, a more casual or conversational tone
>could encourage broader participation as well as make it possible
>for people to feel comfortable asking or saying things which others
>with more expertise in a given area may view as relatively
>unsophisticated. The question is how to foster this...
-- I don't know, but I hope the following is taken in the spirit
of offering one possible way. I know that not all xmca-ers
appreciate informality. I think the question is how to make
contributions that others might care to respond to, that are
useful for our own purposes, and that also allow for participation
by newcomers. Apparently, discussion on this list has in the past
taken a self reflective turn. Maybe now is another moment for it -
it is for me, since I have been on the receiving end of
this last surge of xmca participation, following Mike's smile postings
and the return of conference participants. The reasons may be of
interest to some others, since questions of participation/motivation
are central to the theoretical/practical endeavors of many of us.
Personal reflection follows:
At first, the pleasure of being in the midst of intellectual
activity again, letting ideas surge without any effort on
my part, felt sufficient. Then when ideas began to cook, I
felt like the relative newcomer, in need of more information.
Indeed, I depend on this list because of the charge it makes
on me to find and read materials referred to here whenever they
bear on my own interests (I haven't yet read Gibson). But there's
so much.
I do take time to compose my thoughts, because it helps me think.
I don't do well presenting monological text orally. I have
to memorize or read my presentations. E-mail affords me the
opportunity to write bits of argument, even exploratory bits, in
ways that others can conceivably respond to. I wonder and regret if
the effect on some is to "inhibit the free and spontaneous
give-and-take of ideas which email offers." --?
When I first started to participate, I wrote at least in
part to establish for myself what I knew on a certain topic or theme.
It felt very much like a display and it was very scary indeed. Both
Jay Lemke and Angel My Lin provided for me models of courage.
I hope I am not breaking e-mail protocol, which I am still learning,
by making an example of individuals' styles of participation.
Yes Jay has theoretical clout, but he takes risks and is willing
to state the unpopular opinion (in fact takes evident pleasure in
doing so); Angel has asserted her questions and fears and opinions
without regard to status or clout. I learned from both of them
and thank them here. Others demonstrated other features of what
I take to be "good" e-mail participation. I assume the discussion
list benefits from multiple models of multiple modes of participation.
As I began to participate more, I could better use the discussions
to push my thinking and my thinking to push the discussions. So now
I look for "places" where I can use xmca not only as a prompt to think
about some new issue but also as a tool for furthering an ongoing
project. That takes more lead time before messaging. I assume that
this mode of participation, which may seem overly controlled to
some, is not the preferred mode but a legitimate occasional use of the
medium.
Framing issues of participation as a personal reflection is scary.
I assume that some will be put off by it, others will have no problem
with it; someone might even respond in kind. I would be interested
in finding out the effect it has. (I know that what I take to be
generosity in messaging others may read as aggression. Such
is the roar of everyday reality. Bakhtin would say, name it, know it,
use it, and enjoy.)
Oh, and Mike. The news here is that the butterfly of spring has been
by to say that all will be well and warm again for a while.
- Judy
At 05:59 PM 3/30/96 EST, you wrote:
>Angel, I thought that your remarks regarding pressure at conferences
>to "maintain a certain voice quality" were interesting. I think email
>has the potential to be more casual, more like conversations that
>people actually engage in (filled with misstarts, backtracks, self-
>corrections). However, I think many academics (myself included) tend
>to become highly invested in the way we express ourselves in writing,
>and this can inhibit the free and spontaneous give-and-take of ideas
>which email offers. For instance, since Mike's posting I've been
>asking myself why I rarely participate in XMCA discussions. The
>answer is quite simply: because the sociohistorical perspective is not
>my primary area of expertise, I have been reluctant to express in
>writing ideas which may be only "half-baked". In fact, the email
>format (at least in academic circles) can be far from casual and
>conversational, becoming instead an arena where one displays
>expertise and scholarly depth--just as at a conference. This is
>a thorny issue, inasmuch as much of the material of the scholarly
>craft consists of words, and words which are written can feel like
>a permanent expression of our craft; there's nothing casual about
>that.
> Robin
Judy Diamondstone
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University
.................................................