So now to the discussion of discourse on this list.
Kevin makes the following suggestion responding to David P:
Rather than looking at the international and second language contexts in the
that you do, I think relevant contexts in this case include (a) the
reality of a pervasive sexism in the wider U.S. and international
community; and (b) Academia writ large (and internationally) with its
historically disproportionately white male dominated practices and
traditions (and in non-U.S. cultures minimally male-dominated, if not
white male dominated). Then within the smaller sphere of CHAT, however
politically left or progressive (or whatever) it tends toward, we find a
community still very male-dominated, and white male dominated at that,
Most certainly yes, Kevin. My only suggestion is that in place of :Rather
you substitute the words, "In addition to." To me the most striking aspects
of the ISCAR meeting were the fact that English, not Spanish was the
language and that it cost so much, excluding many people who really should
have been there. I do not know about the gender and ethnic constitution of
If Nancy is referring to the panel I was on, it was all male AND northern
Other panels that I attended following my own interests appeared to be well
with respect to gender and ethnic composition, but I was following my
Marianne Hedegaard, who was president of ISCRAT before this conference gave
attended plenary session, which would be well worth discussing if we could
get a transcript.
But the other plenary speakers were male, and over 40 or 50 years of age.
So what do to about this with respect to ISCAR? The new American/Canadian
representative to ISCAR is Fran Hagstrom.
We can invite her to join xmca and work on changing the dominant patterns of
And on xmca? I counted the first 60 people on the membership list. About
evenly divided between male
and female. But when I counted who had posted thus far this month, it was
35-28 (roughly) male-female.
There has long been more males posting than females. I am less clear about
who answer whom than others
appear to be in part because of the baseline difference in number of
postings. I thought that perhaps an xmca
computer guru could generate the appropriate contingeny table to figure it
out but learned that not only would this
take a lot of time and work but was probably evidence that I am indifferent
to the problems. Those who have responded
to this issue appear certain that females, regardless of age and academic
status are less likely to be responded to,
and perhaps that is correct. It would fit the overall imbalances.
Which brings us to Mary's question:
So, who does this email list, for example, recognize as a іsubjectІ and how
does the list as object both construct and constrain subjectivities and
communicative practices? This is where Bakhtin№s socio-political analysis of
voice and subjectivity adds significantly to what is often neglected in the
CHAT world of triangles, which would be the fact of difference/s and power.
The answer to this question cannot, quite obviously, be provided by me. I am
the protypical problem category.
I will, instead, in my own ethnic tradition, answer a question with a
question. Why, when I posted a message suggesting
that responsibility for coordinating the list (seeing that articles of
interest are selected for discussion, trying to see that
people are answered, etc), did only one person answer that message to say
that it was an interesting idea, but no one,
of any gender, ethnic group, or country of origin, step forward to accept
Sorry this message was delayed. Local family demands intervened part way
through its composition.
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 01:00:22 PST