You may be right, but am not sure if it has to do with "your (my)
longstanding investment in CHAT/ theoretical fluency/ comfort occupying the
virtual floor, etc". I was thinking of "cultural capital" more along the
lines of what I don't have, rather than what I do. But then I agree with
Paul when he says, "the division of labor of course being the unevenly
distributed
access to the resources (knowledge? ideas?) that are a precondition of the
multilogue in the first place".
On one level there is probally definately a relationship between engagement
in multilougue and access to cultural capital (resources). One learns and
appropriates ways of thinking and communicating through engagement in the
multilougue. But on the other hand, I am not comfortable saying that such
an engagement is a prerequisite for access to cultural capital. Having
access to cultural capital does not have to include appropriating (taking
it as ones own) which I have concerns with. If cultural capital is defined
in this way, to my way of thinking, it can be very assimulationist. By not
engaging (silence) the "Community of Practice" tends to reproduce itself
and not be transformative, yet by engaging one may be transformed in ways
one is not totally comfortable with (discussing the issues in a particular
style). I was attempting to look at "cultural capital" in a way that one
did not have to appropriate (or identify) with the practice in order gain
access.
I am trying to move away from (becoming less comfortable with) the notion
of participation, (engagment in multilougue) as a good in itself. When one
engages in a COP there is always a price to pay and division of labor has a
role to play. I have approriated much of the XCMA COP (community of
practice) with active engagement being the tool that allowed it to occur,
but there are other COP in which I participate where I am more conscious on
the appropriation end. There may be ideas or resources that they allow me
access to, but am hesitant about appropriating those ways of thinking etc.
So, rather than it presupposing a cultural capital I do have, my intent was
the opposite.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Cultural Capital
> Nate, While I agree wholeheartedly that cultural capital inheres in the
> xmca multilogue, I also think that your assertion:
>
> >So, for me it is a cultural capital in which I don't as an "individual"
> >need to have considerable assets as in time, resources, or self
assurance
>
> presupposes the cultural capital you do have -- your longstanding
investment
> in CHAT/ theoretical fluency/ comfort occupying the virtual floor, etc.
>
> The thread on silent participation has importantly explicated the various
> discussion-list conditions that affect some more than other xmca-ers'
> participation, which is important not only because the picture is much
more
> complicated than it might seem to someone shy to push that send button
but
> also because it reminds us, shy and not-shy, of our responsibilities as
more
> or less active participants -- but especially reminds, I hope, the
not-so-shy.
>
> 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
>
>