Trying again
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:57:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Rosa Graciela Montes <rmontes@siu.buap.mx>
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Kathie hearing voices
I sent off this message last Thursday. Apparently it never made it to the
list because of problems in my subscription address. I really wanted to
participate in the "list practices" discussion. Some of the topics have
come up again and again over time. So, although the week for
self-reflection has already passed and the conversation has already moved
on, I'd still like to put in my slowly leavening contribution.
--Rosa
> Subject: Re: Kathie hearing voices
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:53:00 -0600
> From: Rosa Graciela Montes <rmontes@siu.buap.mx>
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> References: 1 , 2
>
>
> As a long-time "member" of the community, avid reader but rare
> participant, Kathie's invitation/plea/entreaty really resonated with me.
>
> > so, what i think i am asking this community is
> > ...
> > to invite those who have been pushed to the periphery,
> > those who feel shut out,unsupported, silenced
> >
> > ...
> > is there some way we, as the hodge podge,
> >
> > patchwork community we are,
> > can negotiate some
> > self-organizing practices that will be more inclusive and supportive
> > of all who we are?
> >
>
> Mary, taking up this last point, proposed devoting some time for "a
> communal self-study".
>
> I'm not sure that I find the strategy that has since been suggested for
> this discussion as the most useful, although I can certainly understand
> the motivation behind its suggestion. Paul proposed that we look at
> exchanges in another list, to de-center the discussion and avoid the
> pain or embarassment
> we would all probably feel to find our words or interactions pinned down
> for public scrutiny. He then proceeded to provide a couple of examples
> that we could look at and discuss.
>
> With respect to this, although they are "interesting" exchanges, I
> really don't think that I for one can say much about them.
>
> First, as has already been pointed out by Judy and maybe also Mary, we
> would need a whole lot more "history" about the list, its patterns and
> practices, its membership and so on, to be able to place these exchanges
> in context. In addition, we would need the whole conversation from which
> they sprung,to be able to trace allusions or connections, or to be able
> to interpret the significance of the references made and the actual
> wording used.
>
> Secondly, this strategy limits the discussion to those phenomena that
> one particular person is attentive or receptive to. Somebody else would
> then have to pull other examples from some other list to illustrate some
> other points.
> However, she or he would than have to provide the relevant history,
> antecedents and so on ... and we could go on like this for a long long
> time.
>
> I would rather see discussion focus more directly on our own practices
> and experiences.Things that can be addressed with reference to our
> common ground.
>
> Mary brings up the topic of non-participation and of forms of
> de-legitimation. Together with this there's also auto-exclusion which
> may not be "warranted" or dependent on ongoing practices and which may
> have many different causes.
>
> Another topic that has been mentioned at some point is the relative lack
> of participation from people of differing language and cultural
> backgrounds.
>
> A third topic that was brought up by Eva and I would be interested in
> picking up again, refers to the different senses of the concept
> "community" that seem to be held by different participants. Whereas for
> some "community" gets immediately situated within a technical, academic
> vocabulary: community of practice or COP, for others there seems to be a
> sense of a more intimate, personal relationship implied by the term (as
> in "commune" or "communion").
>
> A fourth point that relates to the previous one has to do with "norms
> of participation" and I can only approach it rather obscurely by saying
> something like ... "cultures leak". As we try to define what this
> community is, we employ those forms of interaction that seem to us
> appropriate for our own particular definition of the situation and what
> we are about. Here we run into two problems. First, not everyone shares
> the same definition. For some, the "academic exchange" aspects of the
> discussion predominate over the more "personal" or nurturing senses of
> community. But, a second problem is that even if two people have a same
> definition of the situation, say "academic exchange", we may have widely
> different ideas (derived from our cultures of origin) as to what is
> acceptable participation in an academic exchange.
>
> For example, in Mexico there's often a negative reception to the more
> direct, confrontational, questioning styles you sometimes find in
> academic exchanges in other parts of the world.
>
> These are just some observations of topics relating to our own practices
> that have been brought up from time to time and which may be of interest
> to pursue rather than looking at isolated examples out of context.
>
> Talk about half-baked ideas! Mine are just barely covered in a damp
> towel and seeking a warm place.
>
> --Rosa
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:05 PST