Well, taking the present events as a model there should be people with
identities construable as "disable", "dropout", "LD", "minority" or "woman"
present in the discussion.
Preferably they should have been actively present as
"first"-co-participants for a considerable time.
This means that some of these categories (plus many other categories of
trouble) are available to us here for the movement from centered reflection
over de-centering and into a re-centering phase of multi-voced perspectives
(which I recognize in Ueno's three identities and three contexts).
Other categories are probably not? So for those categories a discussion
about *third context* will not be "for here" but has to be a "takeaway"
discussion, and as such will have to be a de-centered discussion, reasoning
about other contexts at "arms length". To me this can very well be done in
morally responsible ways. In fact, this is how I see most discussions here
about Others. Just as long as we remember that we *are* in a space aside.
When it comes to "marked" identity categories present on the list -- like
women or non-Anglo tongues -- I would like to think (and the "collective
subject" of the xmca seems to agree with me) that "business as usual" is
already fairly multi-perspectival. We are surely not really in an
"innocent" primary-centered state where all voices are heard and responded
to just for what they say?
Which, by the way, although construed as non-nationalistic, non-sexist etc.
would, in this mixed company context mean that all "marked" categories were
implicitly treated as the "default": as honorary white, male, US citizens...
But as I said, I would like to think that this is not the case. I would
like to think that xmca discussions are multivoiced, cherishing multiple
perspectives: that people carrying marks of identification that are visible
in this narrow bandwidth medium --, like names revealing gender and
ethnicity and styles revealing language background and cultural context...
well, form and content will be inseparable, won't they -- are listened and
responded to as welcome voices with a perspective.
I know there are those of you out there that would disagree with my
optimistic view. But why I argue that I speak for the "collective subject"
of the xmca with this is the list practice-as-usual of encouraging
contributions from "marked" identities (taken up by us as individuals, for
sure), and of responding to each other in terms of content -- NOT usually
pointing to the visible marks of identity, making ourselves and others to
objects of de-centered reflection. We can see the marks allright, but we
don't comment upon them. This is what the collective subject and I would
like to think is neither blindness to diversity nor lukewarm deference but
true multilogue. We may of course be wrong.
In any case our speaking-from-perspectives is so embedded in the xmca
culture -- where it has emerged through a history of critical events --
that it may not always be apparent to the newcomer. Space for
misunderstandings instead of honest disagreements.
At 13.25 -0700 98-05-28, Katherine Brown wrote:
>Has anyone noticed that JK has disappeared
Yes Katherine. We have. (The collective subject and I). And we are wondering=
=2E
Speaking for myself, I was wondering whether I should comment upon the
innocence of offering the identity as a Vietnam veteran as an explanation
to a Japanese participant for why he should enjoy the Memorial Day of USA
war casualties (have a party, watch the parade...) BUT not forget to
remember. To my mind that rather increases the insult of assuming the US
perspective to be shared by all.
Eva
eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se