There does seem to be a common topic here:
Is the xmca community a "complex unity" in which there is some
"concrete universal" that will decide who's in and who's out (a pretty
abstract conception of community)
or is it a complex heterogeneous non-unity in which diverse
participants bring a broad range of topics to bear on the CHAT tradition and
vice versa -- e.g., IS, feminism, etc. framed by and framing CHAT --
If it is the latter, the decision of who's in and who's out SHOULD
be made by NO ONE; the 'community' is made by those who claim virtual air
time. Thus, politeness considerations must be continually brought to the
virtual floor, and those who claim 'air time' share in the rights and
obligations of any participant in a conversation -- OR ELSE, the decision of
who's in and who's out will be made by anyone who insists on rights without
obligations.
Paul, I am guessing that you consider yourself under politeness obligations
in a number of your messages to individuals, though, as you know very well,
some of those on the list feel like you have committed offenses. In what was
for a while the xmca community, the norm would be to apologize, so for those
who saw themselves as members of that (erstwhile?) community, you commit an
offense every time you respond to an appeal without trying to understand the
perspective behind it or offering an apology.
I am equally offending by imposing a perspective & attendant obligations
that you have explicitly rejected.
I thank Rosa and Paul for bringing me back to my previous muddle.
I haven't untangled it entirely, but one thread concerns the individual's
orientation to the various discourses at play on xmca, including discourses
of power -- we can only stand in the place of a power that isn't ours; by
ventriloquating, we make use of that power, as if it were ours. When we
stand in that place, we can claim power, deny it, claim it and like it, deny
it but still like it, or claim it and feel discomfort about it, among other
possible orientations....
From my perspective, Paul, you stand in that place, deny the power you
wield, but enjoy the effects nevertheless. I am naming you because I think
you would feel named even if I tried to 'depersonalize' the content of this
message. This is one more demonstration for me of the limits of an ideology
that refuses to account for individual identities and the role they play in
maintaining or challenging or even changing structures that are only
collectively and over time at stake.
Mike, I wonder what you think....
Paul, you wrote:
>So, to anticipate my response to Bruce, i would suggest that any attempt at
>identify an abstract totality for xmca, will require that someone define the
>limits of that totality. Who will that be? Furthermore, so defining the
>totality will necessarily exclude some voices.
You have a point, as I indicated above. I think we all play a role in making
this a place that is comfortable not only for ourselves but also for others,
even those others who do not participate in styles we like or orient to.
It's a tricky business, but it is the business of both collective and
individual development, isn't it?
what do others think?
Judy
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:10 PST