Yes: I suspect that many, many, snapshots like this one of
institutional(ized) hypocrisy cold be taken. From each of the spots where
the xmca participants live and work -- hypocritical veiling of
inequalitites is not only a North American phenomenon.
As a theorist I note: you show a good reason for why "setting" cannot be
equalized with architecture only, but must be the whole network of
building-equipment-staffing-organization-whatnot. THIS composition of
conditions on heterogeneous scales of time and space (cheers Jay!) is what
constitutes the setting for the practices that take place *in* it. So off
the top of my head like this I'd say that practices also constitute the
setting. And at all moments there is contestability, mutability. Power is a
dynamic phenomenon, isn't it? (Although a lot of time the dynamic is like
the mutual exertion of gravitational forces between the Earth and an ant).
Then about institutionalization and THIS setting: just like a rose is a
rose is a rose but the one on my cheek is a different matter from the one
in the flowerbed which is a different matter yet from the one on the
compass... just like that I think in this thread we have referred to
institutions, institutions and... institutions. For example: (1)
institutions as in the academic departmental settings where we all shine
like gems :-) (2) institutions as in the network of
buildings-equipment-staffing-organization-whatnot that is the enabling
setting of the xmca list (AND the technologically and otherwise VASTLY
diverse local institutional settings that come together in the network);
and (3) institutions as in the system of more or less formalized practices
shaping this virtual culture of xmca.
Number 3 is the one that we have most control over HERE -- we can shape it
in discussing what rules do we want. And what parts of the rule system do
we want to formalize by putting them up as "paragraphs" or procedures, and
what parts can we rest satisfied to leave for elaboration through informal
development of cultural practices. I am FOR good supportive artifacts (in
the CP sense) like good info on how to subscribe and unsubscribe, info on
the history and culture of this setting and info about the participantship
both in terms of names&accounts and in terms of selfdescriptions.
Preferably as much of the actual handling of the stuff as possible should
be delegated to the non-human actant (procmail) to be provided when
situationally appropriate or requested by a participant.
On the other hand, the more I think about it the less appropriate I think
it is to demand a selfdescription from people at the moment of their
entrance into this virtual place, especially if they have never been "here"
before: it smacks too much of passport control at the border or declaring
one's income to the tax authorities. I don't think this is the kind of
setting that needs these precautions. Or, rather, I suppose I take the
minimalist stance of being in favour of signing postings with our real
names (not with Bitnet handles). For the rest I think what we need, and
what we are quite good at shaping, is Netiquette rather than surveillance.
Eva Ekeblad
fully prepared to move this thread (or my strand of it) into xorgan