This is the xmca-ite identity. This is what we (all who participate on
this list-serve, both actively and silently) practice together. It
changes, it means different things to different individuals at different
times, but enough is assumed to be common to make the enactment
functional. When it isn't people unsubsribe, write when they usually
don't, are silent when they usually aren't, or attempt to reconstruct the
meaning. So far we have maintained the construct of xmca as
non-nationalistic (as far as possible for a group of mostly one
nationality.)
>
>Second "Ueno" is visible in the story of US Memorial Days
>of War. By contrasting US Memorial Days and Ueno,
>"Ueno as Japanese" becomes salient and visible.
>At the same time, by this contrasting, "American" becomes
>visible as well.
>This is beyond the problem of individual's intention and
>misunderstanding. Anyway, "Ueno as Japanese" became visible
>or socially, mutually constituted by this contrasting.
This sounds like essentializing a national identity. I think of G. Mead's
veiw of identity as "over against an other." Both the Japanese and the
American are each treated as a single coherent identity. This disturbed me
because I do not share the dominant, male view of Memorial Day or any
celebration of violence. But I did not initially respond for a
multiplicity of reasons mostly bound up in being a woman and feeling that
my opinion on such matters does not count.
This is a habit I am trying to break.
Giving up cigarettes was easier.
>
>Third "Ueno" is in Luiz, Eugene and others' mails.
>Here, "Ueno as Japanese" is still visible. However, the conext
>and the meaning of "Ueno as Japanese" are quite different from
>the second.
>In the third context, "Ueno" as Japanese is just one of various
>different view points. Here, "Ueno as Japanese" is recognized
>and not invisible. However, this visibility is quite different
>from the "Ueno" in the second sense.
>
>Further, this third "Ueno" is produced by the context of
>the second "Ueno". In that sense, this "Ueno" is not independent
>from the second one. However, in third "Ueno", something
>different context from the second are organized.
Here is a meta-identity perhaps. With an awareness of the multiple
identities as being context-dependent, individuals can work to
co-construct a relationship that is beneficial to more members of a
community or one that reinforces structural power relations (dualist,
antagonistic, and asymmetrical.)
>
>What do this exmamples show?
>
>Frist of all, here, it seems to me that the issue of "individuality"
>becomes observable.
This was one of the "cracks and breaks" that Foucault described as opening
the possibility for changing structural power relations.
>
>
>"Ueno as individual" is visible by organizing specific contexts.
>
>This means that organizing specific individuals is mutually
>dependent on organizing contexts, communities, or activities.
>We cannot presuppose universal or invariant "individual" that
>is independent from contexts, communities, or activities.
>Focussing on "individual" is possible. However, that "individual"
>is not given and not independent on organizing contexts or
>communities of practice where we are part of it.
>Further, "individual" is possible to be organized multiply.
Yes.
>
>Each "individual" is interdependent exactly as each context
>is interdependent, that is related to second issue.
I disagree. It's not an isomorphic relationship because the meaning of
each context is taken up in unique ways by each identity. Each identity
views the context from a unique perspective that is filtered by her own
experiences, including her other identities.
>
>
>Second, in the above example, we can see that each context
>is not independent. Three contexts are, in some sense,
>mutually constituted or interdependent.
>Even though the second "Ueno" context is not dominant in this
>community, we cannot be free from the second context that is
>mainly outside of this community where we are also part of it.
>
>Finally, in this example, it seems to me that there is
>the possibility of *the third context* based on the conflict
>in the second context.
I like this concept of the third context. I try to escape dualisms as much
as possible and value a belief in the third alternative. Naoki, I have
learned much from xmca and the opportunity to practice speaking/writing as
an xmca-ite.
>
>By that, I would appreciate this community so much.
>I myself learned the possibility of orgainizng *the third context*
>here although I cannot formulate it well so far.
>
>The "Ueno" in contexts issue is similar to the issues of disable,
>dropout, LD, minority and woman.
>In other words, "Ueno" in the above contexts can be regarded as
>"disable", "dropout", "LD", "minority" and "woman" as well.
>How can we discuss about *the third context* for these issues?
>
>"Let' s Try to Make it a Good Day" -Some Not So Simple Ways
>(Hood, McDermott, Cole 1980, discourse processes 3, 155-168)
>
>Naoki Ueno
>NIER, Tokyo
>
>
kathie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Life's backwards,
Life's backwards,
People, turn around.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sinead O'Connor and John Reynolds
Fire on Babylon: Universal Mother^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Katherine_Goff who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu
http://ouray.cudenver.edu/~kegoff/index.html
>