Having made it - virtually anyway -- through my first academic
hurdle (the major one to come) [& thanks to my mentors,
with flying colors!!!] I can BE again an xmca-er; I can
PARTICIPATE in my favorite PLACE.
I have not yet received my issue of MCA (why NY FIRST?) but
the discussion thread on the survival of settings netted me
right away, since I have in the last 2 years launched TWO, now,
virtual settings -- progeny of xmca -- two attempts to seed
new sorts of interactions, to create the infrastructure
for alternative spaces -- and questions about viability
and sustainability are foremost on my mind.
In the inaugural message of this thread, Eva wrote:
>And
>there, in the (virtual or real) vicinity of the hardware, is the x-family
>of Wiz assistants tending to the functions of connectedness. Maintaining
>the basics of the setting.
The x-family is (in my view, not necessarily Eva's), all xmca-ers,
& the Wiz assistants all those who contribute to the list, who "tend
to the functions of connectedness. Maintaining the basics of the
setting." Yes, the hardware, the technology, the computers screens
all over the globe, but they are certainly not enough. With
respect to virtual spaces like the xmca phenomenon, though the
"durability of material artifacts is a factor" for sure, it's more a
question of how the "networks extending in space and time" (as Paul
wrote) get constituted/ constitute the space.
And here is a key indice of sustainability, "the sense of
dissolution I get when x-messages get few and far between" (Eva).
I am extremely interested in the initial exchange after the X-lists
were restructured (THANKS, Francoise). It's true that the question,
"Is anyone here?" prompts communication in the virtual space (insofar
as the space is a place for someones). But what's most interesting is
what makes the placeness of this space possible, such that,
on the tenth anniversary of the x-lists, after a long lull,
a rush of interactivity swells up in response to the
topic 'the survival of settings.'
Here's my speculation on a semiotic condition that contributes
to the xmca durability, since all the relevant networks of practices
converge only by way of our participation on this list, and we can not
be said to share INTERESTS or even GOALS but perhaps (imagined from THIS
dot in the scheme of things) a commitment toward a social project,
a meta-vision, if you will, of the possibility / desireability of a social
project, a caring-about-there-being a possible beyond the expected and
a desireable that can be realized through processes/practices that we
participate in/affect. But this view underspecifies the role of one
crucial artifact - CHAT, which undergirds that view and all the other
versions of it from different dots in the xmca scheme of things.
There are other discussion lists oriented to similar ideas, but that
don't similarly ENACT them. Maybe it's that CHAT locates the issue of
PARTICIPATION at its nub...
In any case, of the two discussion lists I started, CHAT-like
issues of participation are thematized, especially in the
teacher-research project, but it takes a LOT of work to
make the infrastructure VISIBLE and inviting so that
subscribers make a place of it. Once conversation starts,
I can back out, but a lull can virtually wipe it out so
that I have to play the one and only lonely wiz.
And this only works when the wiz has a bigger piece of the project
in sight than the lurking others. But there are lots of wiz'es here,
and in fact I've attributed Wizdom to everyone who contributes,
including newcomers....
Well, more later, I hope after hearing from others...
Judy
>
>But I should think that only a minority of x-list participants have ever
>laid eyes on the actual machine. Where we see the xmca setting is all over
>the globe, on some few hundreds of screens. And we are certainly not _in_
>the machine, even when our traces are. So, where's the setting? What holds
>it together? I often think that the xmca messages do not function as
>messages only, but also as the floor, ceiling and walls of a common space.
>Virtual, naturally. By this metaphor, I think, I am trying to account for
>the sense of dissolution I get when x-messages get few and far between. And
>the sense of a "solidity of presence" when my mailbox fills up...
>
>All in all, it seems an intriguing task to pry setting and practices apart
>in THIS activity system!
>
Judith Diamondstone
* NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
MAILING ADDRESS:
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903