reference

Judy Diamondstone (diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu)
24 Nov 1998 01:08:59 -0000

Jay's last posting on our cultural bias towards nominalizing
--i.e., breaking into categories, which refer supposedly to
something "out there", real (which is itself probably
an effect of our dependence on written communication) --
versus contextualizing, which fuzzes categorial divisions
but renders experience more precisely -- raises for me the
question, 'under what conditions are we likely to complexify
social reality and what can we do to create those conditions
under social pressure to do otherwise?'

If we were to imagine a counter meta-discourse about research,
knowledge, what counts... building up the sedimentation in our
own research practices that would could rival what is now
presupposed to be of value, it would follow that question.

Or, alternatly, Under what conditions do we defer to categorial
stereotypical characterizations of people, events, situations, and
is there anything we can do to interrupt our disposition?
Obviously, in social roles of power & authority, we are inclined
to go WITh a dominant discourse. Deans, administrators,
policy people, ourselves, when we are serving administrative goals,
or when we want wide consensus for what we say, or people who simply
want power, are those most likely to rely on the taken-for-granted "real."
Those who are unburdened by institutional responsibilities or
"us" when we step out of institution-advancing roles can
afford to (or feel compelled to) imagine alternative possibilities.

I was struck by Diane's note:
>complicating identity means - materially - dealing with people face to face.
>kids do it all the time. the older the kids, the more complex their usses
>of identity become...

The inclination to do differently, to engage with 'difference', to
"hear"/ orient to the non-dominant perspective -- the key here
is ENGAGEMENT. [For an administrator, the _prospect_ of engaging
what is Different probably IS an either-or matter. Prospective
candidates are stamped "deficient" or "competitive"; those
who are competitive are either IN or OUT, etc. But actual engagement
- interpersonal meaning-making -- is the suspension, it seems to me,
of just this power to decide the fate of another.
Engagement projects the frame that both participants are "in"
(we are both part of this story).

Too much to say, too much to do to say it.

Whadoy'all think?
'til later, Judy

Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183

Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake