I am sufficiently out of date so that this confuses me:
"lchc can not ever claim itself to be "inclusive" - a straw state anyhow -
as it is a discourse community based on the recognition of only a narrow
range of participatory forms, moreover, it seems to me not a productive
claim, because to the extent that it is falsifiable, it is easily
falsifiable."
All-- LCHC is an organized research unit at UCSD. XLCHC started as
a community designed to continue interactions of people who had been
at this unit physically. It outgrew its original boundaries and as a means
of recognizing this fact and of trying to link it to XMCA, a journal
with editors in several locations, XMCA has grown up as some sort of
hybrid of earlier and later goals. In the process, many of the original
participants have dropped out and many more have joined.
Just so there is not misunderstanding, lchc is inclusive only in the
sense that it seeks to promote diversity of perspectives, positions, and
participation among members who themselves are diverse along many
demographic descriptors.
XMCA is as inclusive as xmca is. Some participatory forms drive out others,
or attract others. I have added to the narrowness by expressing the
opinion that argumentation that depends for its rhetorical power on
calling into question the intelligence and moral qualities of other
participants is ineffective as a means of persuasion. I guess it could
be otherwise, but in such a case, I would probably prefer to be elsewhere!
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:04 PST