kathie,
I totally agree with the following characterization:
> we all are participating (proleptically,
> but on unique, only partially overlapping trajectories)
And I think that this characterization totally accords with the history of
the consolidation of xmca from the earlier xlists. In "Contact, Community,
and Multilogue" Eva characterized the common center as "an interest in
cultural-historical, sociocultural, and activity-theoretical approaches to
learning, development and communication."
For me, the positive response the query for the activity triangle diagram
affirms the vitality of the "activity theoretical" approaches within the
common core.. I had originally asked mike who suggested i post the request
to list. Upon doing this I immediately received 3 responses, one of which I
was able to turn around and make available to everyone (even got a request
to forward it to someone who isn't on xmca).
A lot of other stuff gets posted that reflects the divergent directions in
the multiple trajectores of the different approaches. Some of this is more
closely related to the common core, other stuff seems to speak more
directly to issues within the approaches that don't really bear a close
relation. Some is even related to assumptions concerning how people who are
interested in CHAT feel about other things; e.g., the scope of academic
freedom. I assume that most people subscribed to xmca because they have an
interest in the common core that Eva described. As she wrote. "The community
of practitioners of the activity system of the xlist academic network
consists of international scholars with CHAT leanings, at any step in their
career from graduate students to full professor, from an assortment of
academic disciplines, and also from careers in domains of CHAT application
outside Academica."
Many threads grow out of core topics that nevertheless are basically of
interest to sub-groups who define themselves more directly in relationship
to a specific theoretical approach or ideological orientation. From my
experience here, it is these topics that generate most of the discordance
and present the greatest threat of disrupting the communication between
members of the diverse communities of practitioners found here (one of
xmca's greatest strengths compared to other lists with much more restricted
foci). This seems to happen when partisans of one theory/ideology insist
that either their ideas or styles be granted a litmus test status for
evaluating other approaches. I do believe there is a place for vigorously
debating the adequacy or correctness of a given position within closely
shared perspectives; e.g., my question to Bruce concerning "concrete
universals" in dialectics. I don't think, however, that much productive
comes out of the clash of approaches stemming from differences in underlying
theoretical/ideological orientations. At that level it seems to be a
question of cross-fertilization which experience shows to be best dealt with
gently.
I admit to have not always lived up to this standard in the past, but all of
this has been a growing experience for me. Now I'm trying to remember the
words to Jerry Garcia's song: Box of Rain: "if you need it you can keep it
, if you don't just pass it on." Within a framework of basic netiquette,
maybe some modification of this would idea would be an appropriate way to
approach participation here. It seems to be what happens anyway.
Paul H. Dillon
p.s. I just read your latest post in this thread kathie. I guess what I'm
trying to say is that I shouldn't have to worry so much about how other
people interpret what I say given that they might not be part of the
specific audience to which my remarks are really relevant. Compare xmca to
a public event (a baseball game, a concert, etc.). Everyone came to see the
game or hear the music. If you hear someone sitting a couple of seats over
say that your favorite ball player or instrumentalist is second rate, you
don't get up and start a fight with them, do you? Isn't that part of the
price of diversity? Remember that we came to watch the game, hear the
music, discuss topics related to, as Eva wrote, "an interest in
cultural-historical, sociocultural, and activity-theoretical approaches to
learning, development and communication."
Furthermore, assuming observation of basic netiquette, it is impossible for
anyone to know how any but a very small handful of people here will respond.
But it's really very intimidating to think that there are people out there
who are reading everything with an eye to its correctness from the
perspective of their own particular trajectory and ready to jump on it as
failing some ambiguous litmus test. That in itself is a mighty force toward
silencing and non-participation.
Perhaps what you're really saying is that you want more people to post who
reflect your orientation. I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to
cater to or cultvate these specific, particular voices except those for whom
they are important. Why not ask yourself what you can do positively to
ensure this greater participation instead of casting it as someone else's
problem? I know of people who could make important contibutions to the
specific trajectories that most interest me (Carl Ratner, Andy Blund, and
now Phil Graham) but who don't participate because they find the threads
dominated by voices that offend their idea of what reasoned discussion is.
Do you think of them when you send messages?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:07 PST