The shared background knowledge and list-memory you refer to that seems to
be a marker of insider status often takee the form of intertextual
references-- to other member's posts, to relevant literatures, books,
articles, etc.
It's occurred to me more than once when I saw a post that was laden with
intertextual features that this genre convention is a form of procedural
display.
Carol
On Friday, 17 Oct. Anthony Pare wrote:
>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