Bill, Diane,
whenever an even slightly acrimonious discussion gets going on email, I
usually go quiet; not because I'm a wimp in general, but my experience is
that email is a medium which lends itself to uncontrolled flaming,
particularly when there are any of us marxists involved ... unfortunately!
xmca has of course distinguished itself for having survived so long with
such an intense level of discussion without descent into either boredom or
flame. So, who am I to say anything on this subject on *this* list?
But! could I appeal to you to "let bye-gones". The *action* Paul took is
accepted as accidental. The *thought* behind it was of course betrayed, and
this thought was one for which various adjectives that I don't wish to
repeat could be applied. It is these thoughts which appear to be the source
of hurt. But in fact, it was not the thought, but the action which hurt,
and this action was unintended.
If we all said exactly what was on our mind to everyone, all the time, the
world would descend into chaos, wouldn't it? All the more rapidly if, as
listeners, we reacted the same way to the spoken word as we are accustomed
to, when words are uttered with care, rather than carelessly.
For my part I am delighted to be part of this list, Bill, Diane, Paul,
Nate, Jan, whomever!
Andy
At 18:01 28/08/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Diane,
>
>I had a chance to think about this contradiction in xmca during a flight
that only fell short of eternity by spending the night, last night, in
Philadephia airport. I had brought the latest Vonnegut paperback with me,
and the two converged nonlinearly in my weary brain to induce some amusing
hallucinations.
>
>>double-jeopardy piece here is that if _I_ make that call, i am a paranoid
>>lesbian-radical, the bull-dyke in army boots (which is sooooooo not me,
>>but i know how i am usually conjured in the minds of others, disembodied,
>>lesbians are always bull-dykes, i well remember the slanderous punch)
>
>I'd like to meet you sometime for a meal, coffee, whatever, and chat. If
at aera in seattle, then perhaps other likeminded folks can join us. The
directions you are pursuing with creativity are highly interesting, as are
your postings, and, of course, I'd to see for myself what you actually do
wear on your feet. ;-)
>
>>...and yet, they are. when others such as judy, eva, myself, or jay, have
>>been attacked, the events have been ignored. so the usual response is to
>>ignore the offence and hope that it will go away. you're right. it IS
>>wrong, and perhaps this time something will be done, perhaps the
>>discussion can be more explicit about how harmful these kinds of attacks
>>can be
>
>As Yrjö points out over and over, systems have ways of burying
contradictions. This is true with xmca, especially as several of us have
worked, without apparent effect, to bring light to this "disturbance" and
to enact positive change. We all suffer when one of us is permitted to
be denigraded and attacked. Allowing an act of aggression, or anger
perhaps, tacitly, through silence, does nothing to reduce the social
acceptance of the act. The perpetrator finds no recompense, no penalty.
In this way silence is near tantamount to acceptance, furthering the
potential for the act to be repeated. The seeds for aggression grow
together with the growing affinities between abuser, the abused, and those
in witness. On this, I speak from the heart as well as the mind, and from
experience acquired long before xmca.
>
>Fleeting anger, even within the most regulated of us, will sometimes
strike out at another. XMCA'ers have been very forgiving of this type of
transgression. Yet what we are seeing is a pattern of anger and
intolerance, and some people's voices are silenced for fear of their
writing and ideas being assaulted, and even others are silenced because
their sensibilities are offended by what they observe. I know Diane, from
personal exchanges with other xmca'ers, that when you have protested, there
were many of us who cared for you, yet who may have communicated with you
in ways that may not have appeared supportive. The emergence of this
disturbance appears to be trying the best in each of us, as we struggle
with strategies for intervention.
>
>Personally, I only wish to invest my time communicating with those who are
reasonable.
>
>There are also two important strategies that are not explicitly described
in the change laboratory work, and I'd bet dollars to donuts they tie
individual actions to systemic change. I learned them from a colleague
whom I respect, and while she never named them, she applied them
intuitively with the effectiveness of a crime lawyer. I call them "in your
face", and "persistance". I see the maintenance of this thread in
agreement with those strategies, sustaining a visible resistance.
>
>Thoughts to sustain?
>
>
>
>
>Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
>Lesley University (Effective September 5, 2000)
>29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>_______________________
>"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
>[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>
>
**************************************************
* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Consultant,
* and Manager of Videoconferencing Operations
* http://home.mira.net/~andy/
* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
**************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:53 PDT