I have been mumbling to myself all morning, after a sleep filled with other
mumblings and slack-jawed pauses -
it occurs to me that mike's question about the possibilities of "blurring"
the categorical boundaries
and finding ways for these to be
"backgrounded,
criticized, and re-admired? Where power flows in many directions, and
systems of thought "leak" into each other in ways that members experience
as enriching?";
and Jay's thoughtful comments on the potential for recognizing how
"the vast majority of us are in one way or another
'queer'. Some of us suffer more for being typically deviant than others,
but almost all of suffer more than we need to in order that others have the
privilege of forgetting that they're 'normal'. "
both, in a way, also reflect a valuable perspective on (check this segue)
the discussion of push/pull, which is, as Jay points out, dichotomous and
so lacking a necessary tension... (oooh, I know, you're all thinking, WHERE
can she be going with this????)
What I am getting to here, in ways of parallels, and in an other way of
responding to Jay & Mike, is the notion/activity of "interaction"...
It seems to me that for interaction to truly be a growth-potentiating
activity, there must be an element of manipulation, more than push/pull,
there must be a viable change which occurs
from the interaction - thus, for example, textbooks, whatever form they
take, resist these kinds of transformative manipulations because even if
students were invited to re-write the textbook themselves, the textbook is
still foregrounded with an authoritative primacy;
the push/pull metaphor, then, seems to foreclose space for change through
interaction, where participation actually invents alternatives.
The ways that "power may flow", where systems of thought may indeed "leak"
into each other, as mike suggests, is, I would venture,
a plausible activity only when these interactions are enabling some sort of
change to take place - when there is an actual manipulation of power which
is included as a participatory practice in the exchange of ideas -
and as Jay indicates, while the "normative" is a fictive tool used by
theprivileged few to ensure kinds of domination, its materiality is
overwhelming.To interact with the practiced doctrines of normal (which
write school policy, insurance laws, state laws, and so on) one would need
to have access to the viability of manipulation, to change, to write over,
to present alternatives, to... emerge from the outfield with a completely
different ball, so to speak (c'mon, it's the playoffs!)....
which is, when all is said and done, horrifying to most. Because if we say,
say, abolish compulsory schooling, abandon textbooks, discard the necessity
of state/church recongition to legalize a union (marriage), children are
not property of their biological parents; let the public design public
space, and so on, most folks freak,
One of my fascinations with this notion of interaction as being an activity
of change is that I find most mediums forbid it. Most mediums make claim to
interactive qualities, but in fact are merely gaming devices which allow
the user to re-arrange the rules/tools/practices already put in place.
Yes, we are all different, we are all potentially queer: but the privileges
that accompany this sort of declaration are frequently little less that a
sort of back-patting and a sigh of philanthropic relief;
yes, there are vast possibilities for re-presenting the textbook as a way
to move in small steps towards the future time when information is
disseminated with an ear to diversity, equity, contradition, interruption,
and critique; but the legacy of the textbook is impossible to perceive
without some sort of access to its dismissive stance as (non)'interactive';
and yes, of course, there are ways to explore how systems of power can flow
through exchanges such as the ones which take place here,
and yes, of course, most of the (exclusive) members who have access to the
languages which write these university-based sites will challenge
themselves to think in more complex twists and turns;
and yes, of course, understanding how we all unwittingly exercise kinds of
privilege may enable a textaully-present, responsible-response in these
tech-sites;
but I suppose I wonder, still, how often are our thoughts and practices
shaped in such a way that they may appear 'revolutionary' and
'interactive', while continuing to vanguard the very deep and squishy
reality about the utter flesh of difference,
and cherished materiality of privilege, the cranky resentments of guilt (I
am thinking here of that student who resented the emphasis on "whiteness"
in his class, his contempt for writers such as Gates, and so on...our
invitation to "interact" with this student gave me pause for thought; I've
met students like that one, and know from experience that no amount of
pushing or pulling can enable a change of heart in cases of racism, when it
is, in fact, a structural organizition...)
but I've gone on and on and on here. I suppose what I'm thinking here is
that there are no resolutions to these issues, rather, these are the kinds
of complexities which, I think, are helful when they underwrite what we say
and do as academics, teachers, students, and hangers-on of
educational/school-based practice.
they cannot be fixed by declaring we are all queer when only some of us get
bashed or banned from practice; and certainly we want to interact with
other in a way which opens possibilities for difference, but these
interactions are always going to be lacking a substantial materiality
needed for change, whether of heart, or policy, or practice;
and this is not say that I'm a bitch who can't be reconciled with, ha ha,
but that the desire to fix problematic issues of privilege, or educational
legacies, can sometimes blur the details of what keeps these structures in
place in the first place.
It is a fabulously interesting dicussion, of course, but might pertain more
to how we understand Melanie's situations with Korean students,
or the (dangerous) question of ideologies and adolescence (a culturally
fictive category in-itself), and the question of who benefits from a
"push/pull" perspctive, and so on...
diane (mebbe it's the caffeine... :-)
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"
(Ani Difranco)
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of graduate studies
(604) 253-4807 centre for the study of curriculum and instruction
university of british columbia,
vancouver, british columbia, canada V6T 1Z4