A couple of comments and some history.
As Paul has already noted it is one of the characteristics of "these"
listserv cycles that contributors jump to conclusions. Well, to my mind
mailinglist participation does take a lot of conclusion-jumping
(assumptions of shared context, etc.) or these written conversations
between virtual strangers won't come off at all. It's just that sometimes
contributors jump to very similar conclusions and at other times we jump to
different and clashing ones (ouch, I stubbed my toe). The process isn't
very orderly.
Cyclicity and "periodic eruptions", too, are characteristic of many more
types of event than those of disagreements, strong opinions and power
clashes. The branching chain reaction pattern of the initial phase of a
topic that -- all of a sudden -- engages a lot of list participants and
coordinates them through some intriguing or contentious boundary object is
very similar in temporal structure whether the emerging episode is a debate
of gender and academic freedom, an exploration of a new angle on the Zone
of Proximal Development or an outburst of self-presentations after a
technical cutoff (like the one we had back in November). Likewise, I cannot
see that people would contribute at all to a mailinglist (excepting,
possibly, stuff like conference announcements) without investing something
of themselves and their emotionality (of all temperatures and flavors) --
in writing, even more than in reading. I invest my time, and my time is a
precious commodity (presuming to speak for us all). One could probably get
a lot out of an analysis in terms of use value and exchange value (but I'm
not doing that piece of homework here).
Through the years there have been MANY conflicts, clashes, quarrels and
escalating misunderstandings on XMCA and its ancestors. Smaller and larger
and with varying outcomes. The thing with endings of cycles, though, is
that they are usually a lot less recognizable than beginnings. Events pass
without a clear "final word". Open to multiple interpretations, and
multiple "coping strategies". From experience I know how touched and shaken
one can be. Up or down. It's not so different from life in face-to-face
groups, perhaps, except that we don't bring our revealing bodies into the
virtual commons. Much easier to slip away un-noticed (gremlings willing).
At 14.43 -0700 99-08-09, Linda Polin wrote:
>the presence of a "core group" of folks who seem to know
>each other much more personally and for a greater length of time and
>represent a greater proportion of the total subscription group, and a
>periphery not so loaded with transients. (This group's also a lot more
>civil about it all.) Of course, I could be wrong about those assumptions.
No, it's quite true that there's a core group, some of whom have been
around on the Xlists for a LONG time (I have data all the way from 1988,
ought to write something about the turnover processes) -- the core changes,
slowly, and... I think of people's trajectories in and out of the system as
a rope or yarn: a bunch of long fibres hold it together, a substantial
number of medium length fibres overlap and give volume, and then there's a
lot of short fibres (lint that keeps falling off ;-) About these
transients: I was actually a bit worried to see when I did last years
statistics how relatively few newcomers there were, compared to what has
been the normal Xlist pattern. You never know who's a transient until she
leaves, and a list needs both kinds, transmitters of the local culture and
influx of new ideas and practices -- newcomers who decide to stay, people
who return, etc.
As for oldtimers "sitting back" from the Daly discussion... I don't know.
=46or my own part I can confess a certain conflict avoidance, but there
aren't many of the participants in the event that I would call newcomers,
offhand (Hmmm... do I draw the line in -96 or..). What gave THAT
impression?
uh, well
Eva