I could not help noticing the emergence of somewhat "personal" mails posted
on XMCA. While I have no intention of reading others personal mails, having
stumbled upon them quite by chance, I must admit that I found it rather
amusing, i.e. to be thrown headlong into other's very personal conversations.
On another note, I'm trying to understand this "practice". I assumed that
the personal mails were sent by mistake as many have apologised. At the same
time, it also raises a question on the notion of community "comfort zone"
and identity.
Even without considering some really personal mails (which were sent by
mistakes), there have been in the past a number of mails bordering on
informality and on friendly self disclosure, thus crossing into more
personal genre of speech and conjuring an image of a friendly community and
"comfortable zone" of interaction. It brings to mind of Bakhtin's discussion
on "The problem of speech genres", where he claimed, "An absolutely
understood and completed sentence, if it is a sentence and not an utterance
comprised of one sentence, cannot evoke a responsive reaction: it is
comprehensible, but it is still not all."
In articulating this, I am suggesting that perhaps, my identity as a
observer (passive/inactive etc) participant in XMCA in the past (up till
now) has only been that of a somewhat disengaged member, watching the
"actions/interactions". This has been the case, in my short experience in
XMCA, when reading most mails that were "comprehensible, ... complete".
But, in noticing mails that borders on the affect, I'm almost ready to jump
in response, although sometimes there are really very personal mails, which
I have no business to be involved in. The same response is conjured too in
reading mails which raised more questions rather than those with complete
logically discussions.
Relating this to identity and community of practice. Does this mean that
identification necessitate affect, such as positive motivation and personal
interest bordering even fun and amusement, thus crossing into comfortable
zone. The consequence is a postive identity within such community of
practice? Is this similar to Lave and Wenger's notion of progress from
peripheral to legitimate participation? Or can one even assume the notion of
identity construction always involved such progress within communities of
practice(s)? What do you think?
In addition, I'm also needing some help here. I've been searching lately for
some good review articles on Identity, could anyone help me on this?
Similarly, I am looking for an Identity research review paper with a
particlar flavour in CHAT perspective. In the past, Bill Penuel and Wertsch
have written a joint paper on "Vygotsky and Identity formation," Bill, have
you extended your discussion further on that? Let me know.
Thanks
Victoria
Victoria Yew
Ph.D. Candidate
School of Educational Psychology, Literacies & Learning
Faculty of Education
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
Telephone : (02) 9351 6326/ International +61 2 9351 6326
Fax : (02) 9351 2606 / International +61 2 9351 2606
E-mail : v.yew who-is-at edfac.usyd.edu.au