Yes, I am with you. Thanks much.
Your thoughtful points are giving me pause to wonder what things might be
done to inspire the less encouraged and the more marginalized on xmca to
participate more - and on their terms and in their comfort zone (for
example, women, people where English in not their first language, people
new to CHAT, people new to a discussion list like this, etc.). There may
be some who are lurking and have been reluctant to offer more than an
occasional post - and perhaps, have never posted at all. What could make a
PS what are "coups"?
At 10:59 AM 10/14/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>hey, Steve - yes, as you point out this has been an on-going meta-concern.
>one thought to share would be looking at past research about male to male
>discourse in face-to-face situations in which women were present. i can't
>make particular citations, but in particular were the consistent
>observations that they men spoke more often than the women, and what they
>said took up more 'air-time' -
>i responded to Judy's email, because it was a direct message, asking if
>anyone had noticed what she wrote - asking if she had been heard. i
>considered past patterns on xmca, and decided to wait 24 hours before
>responding. the 24 hour wait was because generally the response time on
>xmca is much less than 24 hours. the silence around her request then
>prompted my response.
> but, it has led me to consider, what is the prized, or privileged,
> style of discourse on xmca? i do think that the emails messages of
> indicative of a certain excellence of a particular writing genre, and
> that certain coups are gained from it. this is back to Bateson,
> here. but also, reflecting on a most recent death, Derrida, in which he
> points out that when an activity is constructed, that means that
> something else is particularly marginalized, left out, which can then be
> repressed and silenced.
>a couple of points.
>From: Steve Gabosch [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wed 10/13/2004 2:52 PM
>Subject: RE: hello, anyone there?
>I care about the concerns you raise in your post. On a person-level scale,
>I am interested in learning what I can do to participate well on this list
>- perhaps there are some things I can do better. I will certainly pay
>close attention to what you say.
>On a larger scale, I am currently reading a paper by Eva Ekeblad from 1999
>that analyzes xmca (and its predecessor, the xlists) for a 10-year
>period. She deals at some length with the way what she calls "multilogues"
>emerge and decay, as well as many other aspects of how discussions on a
>list like this develop. Occasional "meta"-level posts like yours are also
>a part of the ongoing process. You touch on some ongoing problems xmca and
>any discussion list faces, particularly a scholarly one. Sometimes posts
>do get ignored. Why? What should be done when that happens?
>My motivation for reading Eva's papers is to work up a proposal for some
>kind of a poster session on xmca for the Seville ISCRAT conference next
>year. Some xmcaers have expressed interest in doing this - and have raised
>some really interesting ideas - and all are welcome. Everything is still
>just being considered - absolutely nothing is "decided". Mike Cole is
>supportive of this poster session idea but will only be able to provide
>some guidance, and attend it. So it is a pretty open-ended discussion at
>this point. I'm trying to do some homework. A motivation for me is to
>promote the next xmca course, which will probably commence shortly after
>the ISCRAT conference in September. I found the international
>participation in the last xmca course - and xmca in general - to be very
>important, and I wanted to help promote that.
>The papers by Eva are at:
>But on the more specific questions you raise, Phillip - a few guys talking
>to a few guys, people being treated as if they don't count, etc. - these
>are very important problems to be aware of, whether these results are
>intended or not, or even whether these results are under the control of any
>particular person. Please share your thoughts. Thanks.
>At 08:02 AM 10/13/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> > hello, everyone - i found Judy's email posting fascinating, both
> > for the lengthy reference to Bateson, who i admire, and for the continued
> > silence in response to her posting. i went back to Bateson's "Steps to
> > an ecology of mind" and refresh my memory about his take on
> > communication. in the chapter on Double Bind, Bateson points out that
> > messages carrry multiple meanings, and that while one of the meanings is
> > found in the content of the message, another message is about the
> > relationship between the communicators. it's my take that the message
> > about the relationship in regards to the silence regarding Judy's posting
> > is that she doesn't count. looking at the pattern of communication here
> > on xmca, with a few exceptions, such as Mike who nearly always responds
> > to each person, the pattern is a few guys talking to a few guys, and
> > ignoring those who .... who what? i can only observe the silence, and
> > the way the relationship is constructed - the whys i've not a clue about.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Judy Diamondstone [mailto:email@example.com]
> >Sent: Tue 10/12/2004 8:39 AM
> >To: Xmca@Weber. Ucsd. Edu
> >Subject: hello, anyone there?
> >I am egotistical enough to wonder if it was my last message that brought
> >this list to a resounding silence....
> >If my version of GBs attempt to bring the sacred to center stage in science
> >as an object of activity induced any response, I'm curious to know what it
> >was. Perhaps I (mis)represented the project, or perhaps the project
> >misrepresents the do-able, or misses the practical altogether? I ask because
> >I am still thinking about the curricular questions...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:06 PST