I am sorry to have offended you by my publication of the inner theatre
where characters like Cynic and Besserwisser play minor but disturbing
roles, goading me into opposing them.
I had hoped that my labelling of them would make clear that these were
efforts to articulate standpoints NOT my own, without putting the blame of
actually SUPPORTING those standpoints on to any specific group. Indeed,
this kind of simplified presentation of absurd standpoints would typically
seem to serve as a rhetorical fiction to enhance the writer's own
reasoning. When you actually read your opponents, things generally get
rapidly more complicated.
So I used the device of Cynic and Besserwisser instead, ordering those
rascals to listen to the sensible voice of Mike Cole, and my concluding
little musing about the "trans" words. It saddened me to see that you had
included the lines of this actor, playing the Real Eva among your total
misunderstandings. You see, this is one of the things that I keep doing in
the communities where I participate, I take on the role of reminding people
of the polysemic nature of words. As writers and theory-builders I think we
need to consider the potentials for misunderstanding sedimented into old
connotations of central terms and weigh this against the potentials for
confusion in adopting less connotationally tainted but, perhaps, more
far-fetched words: I do not command changes, just nudge a bit towards
reflection. At least, that's how I see it. As readers, on the other hand I
think we need to be forgiving, we should not think too soon that the writer
has packaged the same implications into a certain word that we would have
done ourselves: before condemning we need to have taken quite a few turns
in the hermeneutic spiral of this particular system of thought. This is why
I appreciate so much the people who can contribute some historical
background.
Well, I do not need to lecture you, Ueno-sensei, the target for my lecture
is rather Edouard Lagache, whose offhanded allegations about "what activity
theory does not attend to" or "what most people on this list don't
understand" still offend me, although he now claims to have been "just
joking". I am not a well-schooled activity theorist, nor am I "most people"
(who is?) but I take offense on behalf of the whole community because I
love this "virtual place".
Edouard: as far as I understand it, humour is a positive feature of this
community, just as in the quite different case analysed by Baym. Humour on
the xmca comes in many flavours, contributing to the generation of our
xmca identities (like the irony that Bill keeps apologizing for, making me
wonder what I missed... evidently I'm totally comfortable with that style).
Yours, Edouard, is a bit on the boyish, rowdy side. Further from my
domains, but certainly enhancing an identity. But I still just cannot
swallow sweeping attributions of absurd standpoints to members of this
community!
*That*is*not*funny*
Rather it's combative challenge. And as such it did have effect: it got
both Yrj=F6 and Naoki-san to write some long contributions, which they do no=
t
often have time for. So I'm not even saying that everything on this list
has to please MY sense of politeness... although I do get angry... and
respond with that "motherly patience" that my kids used to tease me for a
lot in their teens. Actually, I cannot even say that I object to combative
argumentation: just that fighting should be *fair* AND the challenger
should take responsibility for the challenge. So yes, I have my share of
the good old playground ethics.
Just one more thing, Edouard: playing with the concepts of one theory in
the terminology of another, or other kinds of experimental "mixing of
perspectives" is, as far as I know, an accepted genre on the xmca
playground. People do it. I have done it myself. The reactions to your
attempt were, I think, because your experiments were read within the frames
of "what activity theory does not attend to" and "what most people on this
list don't understand" that you had provided us with.
While I'm addressing you, Edouard, something entirely different: thanks a
lot for telling me about the possibilities to visit the UCSD without being
a driver. I'm used to the inconveniences, so you have convinced me it won't
be much worse than usual.
=46inally, Judy, reading your response I realized that it looked as if my
posting of Baym's research was a response to Naoki Ueno. Due to the
workings of the weber.ucsd.edu server it wasn't. When I wrote the Baym
posting Ueno-san's double response to my "trans" message had not yet
arrived. In fact both our postings arrived at weber in the "freeze" of
Californian morning office hours when postings to lists are nominally
re-sent, but actually kept in temporary refrigeration until the Magical
Minute (which is some time around 2pm). This is Sysadmin Power over the
Obligatory Point of Passage for the xmca community -- sorry for mentioning
technicalities, but they DO sometimes produce some confusing displacements
in the turntaking of this slowmotion textual conversation.
Obviously the Baym msg as well as the Trans Theatre are outcroppings of my
preoccupations with CMC ethics, and the place of humour. We are making it
as we go, but I hope this posting has made things a little clearer for now.
Right now it strikes me as quite funny that in some situations I'm
perceived as TOO frank, in other situations as cryptic. And I agree with
both!
Eva
eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se