Thanks to Bill for naming what is so simple after all --
>
>Devices as patronization and sarcasm (mea culpa) do not work, but again, it
is in the interpretation and in tolerance -- was that really patronization
or an clumsy attempt of politeness? Was that really sarcasm or an attempt
at finding humor in the situation?
I wonder if inconsideration is always a sign of vulnerability.
I know that the meaning of that statement will be very different, depending
on who reads it.
I address it to myself.
Sometimes it's hard to write from a "place of power" & non-vulnerability.
From that position, it's easier to be gracious and generous towards the
perceived flaws of others, which are after all only signs of our own.
Bruce:
>
>My aim in making explicit some basic rules of behaviour was to try to draw
>a line between what 'any reasonable person' (to use a legal phrase) would
>agree with - and could thus form the basis for a minimal consensus - and
>what should be subject to negotiation, self-restraint or heated debate
>(unfortunately - as in my view discussion of tone, mode of address etc is
>unproductive). So, in reply to Eugene: No, I don't see knowledge of these
>rules as a means of avoiding conflict, but rather as a way of saying there
>are certain minimal things that definitely are not acceptable to the list
>as a whole. I also agree that any interpretation will be fuzzy to some
>extent.
>
The medium being only text driven screens out all of the other cues that we
would use face to face to mediate our responses to each other. Compounding
this is that our collective object is amorphous in contrast to those we
share day to day and face to face with co-workers, and in comparison,
affords only the weakest of ties, whether affective or substantive.
>
>I assert that our multivoicedness is materialized in our division of labor
-- in who is writing messages. I cannot come up with any other thermometer
to measure our multivoicedness with any reliability. When conceptualized
in this manner, the playing field of xmca is far from flat: the ratio of
people posting to those not posting is small. Some who are readers-only
would prefer it this way. So be it. But I think it is in our collective
best interest to provide audience to every person who ventures to write.
There are constant tensions in our discourse: some peoples voices will
intimidate others into silence, voices will be ignored, some voices will
command more of our attention than others. Sometimes what someone writes
will simply cause the reader to pause and think for a moment.
>
>Sometimes xmca is like a large classroom in which there are only full class
discussions. The ecological constraints on floor time in xmca are mitigated
due to the asynchonous nature of email, but the other problems of discourse
and power are still here with us, as several folks here have been
commenting, over and over. The social designs we use in the classroom to
reduce these problems include small group discussions, and the related
strategy has been applied with the old xlists. But it is behooving to
consider other ways to regulate our communications with each other, with the
hope of supporting the multivoicedness that is a fundamental element of what
makes xmca work.
>
>Practically, I see a two-sided bottom line:
>
>1) Golden rule applies at each of our terminals.
>2) We attempt to design in, and explore, some other ways of interacting.
>
>
>bb
>
>
>
>Bruce suggested:
>>- Sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism and other forms of discrimination are
>>not to be tolerated;
>>
>>- Ad hominem / feminam argument (i.e. argument aimed at the person /
>>personality of one's opponent rather than their substantive positions),
>>abuse and threats are not acceptable;
>>
>>- Everyone has a right to take part in any discussion and equally to ignore
>>any discussion.
>
>Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
>Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>_______________________
>"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
>[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>
>
>
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:11 PST