Marginals of the list
Anthony Pare (PARE who-is-at education.McGill.Ca)
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:19:20 -0400
As a newcomer to xmca, I have been interested in the recent discussion
about xsiblings and the rise and fall of lists. In particular, I wonder
about an unstated or perhaps unexplored assumption that lists are
inherently (or potentially) more democratic forums than other
speaking/writing situations because they offer equal and virtually
unlimited access (to list members, at least) and are more or less
faceless and title-less. Although it is clear that institutional
hierarchies elevate some and marginalize others, and thus create
inequalities in discourse, with some speakers granted greater status,
more opportunity, institutionally-sanctioned credibility, and so on,
positions and titles (Dr., Prof., etc.) alone do not account for such
conversational patterns as frequency and length of contribution or
volume of response to contributions. There are dynamics within
conversations that create hierarchies, establish power relations,
silence some and sanction others. The e-mail "voice" can carry
confidence, anger, disdain, sarcasm, and other attitudes that have
profound rhetorical effect; even those attitudes that are benign can
have a silencing effect. (I am thinking here of the poorly timed
occasions when I have asked a shy student for an opinion or invited a
distracted student to join a discussion.) List contributors, especially
oldtimers, can display familiarity or knowledge that makes newcomers
cautious and quiet. Even informal discourse, over time, develops rules
and conventions that are invisible to oldtimers but must be discerned
and learned by newcomers. Long membership means a considerable amount of
shared background knowledge, a list-memory or history that confers a
certain status. When I first joined the list - a couple of weeks ago - I
thought I'd walked into a bar room brawl. As a "new kid" in the
neighbourhood, I was not about to join in the conversation at that
point. Not only did the conversation seem heated (at least) and
potentially dangerous for the over-sensitive or easily-hurt, but when it
returned to regular topics it often seemed so erudite, so theoretical,
so well- informed (when do these people have time to write such
well-formed comments, I thought). And even now, after "listening" with
interest to a couple of threads and beginning to feel a stronger sense
of belonging in the conversation, I am aware that this, my first post,
may receive unanticipated (and unwanted) response or, perhaps worse, no
response - that awkward silence that follows inappropriate comments in
group discussion. Have I stated the baldly obvious? Has this or a
similar point already been discussed? Have I made myself clear? If
graduate students and other newcomers have been welcomed to and accepted
on lists but remain reluctant to contribute, it may be that other,
non-institutional (or non-Institutional) rhetorical dynamics are at
work.
Anthony Pare pare who-is-at education.mcgill.ca