Bill,
As someone very interested in "conversational" processes and
dynamics, I am interested in the discussion you open up,
reflecting on our practices through the lenses of our
distributed theories. (Especially since I am a frequent
non-poster :-) ).
I'm not sure if I would define the list as a "community",
though, but rather as an ongoing "speech event" (a la
ethnography of communication).
The universe of permitted speakers (posters) is composed of
those who've "subscribed", although practically anybody can
be a reader if they know about the on-line site.
I guess subscribers are ratified potential participants and
others would be something like "eavesdroppers" who may or
may not be there. (I was bounced off the list sometime in
September and "eavesdropped" for a while, checking in at the
online site every so often until I joined up again a few
days ago).
Non-posting is always a self-selecting-out (people choose
not to post). But the reasons behind this choice may be
purely one's own or they may be a response to how one feels
one's participation is being received. (Here's where some
scaffolding for a newbie or an "outsider" might be helpful).
Among "self" reasons for not posting are lack of time or
viewing the list as a "resource" and framing one's
participant role as spectator or audience. You pick and
choose what's useful and delete the rest. In this case
the viewer doesn't see a need or responsibility to
contribute.
But some people, other times that this discussion has
come up, mention that they feel excluded from the list
either by lack of responses to their postings or by feeling
unaddressed (usually because the topic is closed down too
much [although this last would suppose that there is just
ONE topic at a time]).
The definition of "Object" may also be a problem.
I think that even though the "object" of the list, as you
cite it, is broad, there are conflicting views
among current participants as to what the list SHOULD be
about. Some would like a broader scope and some would like a
narrower, sharper focus that delves into the specifities of
this list and makes use of the expertise of the more
knowledgeable.
I think I used to like it better when it was more
free-ranging, when there was less of a "track" and when a
lot of topics would be going on at the same time.
Oops, I've sort of strayed from the newbie-scaffolding. What
I wanted to get at is that the list is not a homogeneous
speech community. It is a speech "event" in which people
from different communities will be participating. Some may
place themselves as spectators because they see themselves
as "outsiders", some may be placed there because they are
seen as "irrelevant".
OQ: Should we make an effort to encourgae
those who write from other perspectives, with other
discourses? Do we need interpreters or translators? Or do we
encourage the "outsiders" by leading them into the
"mainstream" community and homogenize out the differences?
-Rosa Montes (U.A.Puebla, MEXICO)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:19 PST