[Xmca-l] Personal /Interpersonal / Transactional issues in xmca

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

Dear Annalisa, all,


I am forwarding my last response to Annalisa with the hope of freeing the "Rogers day" discussion from other debate emerging along with it having to do with management of interactions here in xmca. I realize that my last response to Annalisa lends itself to an interpretation as my position being one of patronising and further shutting down a participant in particular, further deepening an asymmetrical and unjust model of discussion/collaboration.


Of course, nothing is further from my intentions, but, as I already said, in a way, little matters what my intentions are if we don't get into a shared project of finding out how to move on together. And so, instead of hijacking an otherwise fruitful scholarly discussion on positive/negative affects in cultural historical theory, I thought it would be a good idea to create this space, in case Annalisa or anyone else would like to continue the discussion.


The aim is also to move beyond the interpersonal, and getting into the transactional, which I did not mean as way to silence a possible trouble, but rather to turn it into something more like a project than as a back and forth between "I meant, you did not understand" "you meant, I did understand" problem. But other aims are welcome. I used a subject line, but please, feel free to change it.


Alfredo



________________________________
From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
Sent: 13 August 2018 12:09
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day


Hi Annalisa,


thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to this list.


But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to.


So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, another related example is research about teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this.


I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention for was white and male, while other female participants (including yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal.

​Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration.


Best wishes,

Alfredo

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day


Alfredo,


Thank you for your post.


I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him.


If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender.


If I may quote his post:

"I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don’t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don’t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples."


I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED.


Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said.


Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo.


Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way.


There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me?


If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me.


A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it.


I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit.


Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said?


That is a real question.


It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews.


Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future.


I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious.


It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he?


If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office.


To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited.


I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here.


I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable.

Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it.

You say:
"It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. "

I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past.

You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that.

I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye."

Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title.

Kind regards unconditionally,

Annalisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/bb4b53d9/attachment.html