Just got to this message. I think Kathie has both named and demonstrated the
problematic here, which is not simply cross-cultural
(cross-social-group-identification) talk - it's always necessarily (so Lacan
would say? I guess) a sign of who is more powerful. I think it's the power
differential that "torques" perceptions most, because it's so arbitrary but
so real. Insofar as we know & presuppose its arbitrariness, the project must
be aimed at utopian if transient ideals, like (signs of/ shows of) equality.
Insofar as we are, at any moment, fortunate enough to know a position of
relative power, at least in discourse, we can presuppose our own
powerfulness, which is 'real' at that moment; WE are comfortable, we do not
see cause to adjust our talk, and we resent the imposition of someone else's
discomfort. What do you think?
Somehow, I want to count on Nate to straighten out what is missing or
incoherent in this message: who else has read cultural-historical AND
psychoanalytic criticisms -- Nate?...
At 07:23 AM 2/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>>I do have to admit though I am a little confused with the message that
>>began
>>the thread,
>>
>>"Can anyone who has used activity triangle diagrams in their work tell me
>>what software or plug-in was used to create and annotate the triangles for
>>inclusion in a word processing document?"
>>
>>I am confused how this is not request for help, or how it would be seen as
>>confrontational. My goal is understanding nothing more.
>
>i never said that i did not understand this as a request.
>i wanted to use it as an example of how language "styles" can support or
>detract from building relationships that are more or, sometimes, much less
>equal.
>>
>>Kathie mentioned the the politeness of please. For me, please has very
>>strong class (and racial) connotations such as the yes mam, yes sir
>>legislation. We tell children to say please because we want to reinforce
>>some division of power. If I am talking to an equal I would not expect a
>>please, but that is my frame of reference. So, for me, please would
>>connotate respect, but not the kind between equals.
>
>please is neither here nor there. i don't know what the answer is, there
>probably isn't one. i am much more certain that there is a question here,
>but i think how it gets asked and who gets to ask it is more important
>than the content of the question.
>
>Can anyone help me . . .?
>
>can just as easily denote a relationship of unequality.
>the unspoken meaning being if anyone _can_ (as in has the ability)
>why then, of course s/he _will_ (for who could refuse to help _me_).
>if the addressee feels on equal footing with the requestor, then there
>will be a different unspoken meaning than when one person feels obligated
>to be of service in order to be allowed to participate.
>
>i never intended to weigh down this one question with so many
>possibilities...
>then again, doesn't every human interaction carry multiple, fluid meanings
>at many levels and time scales?
>>
>>I guess what I'm asking for is clarification of what is confrontational,
>>offensive about the request for info on the activity triangles. To me, it
>>seemed in line with the various questions that have been thrown out on
>>xcma
>>over the years.
>
>this is the "traditional" argument, isn't it?
>all i can say is that the one posting, the one request, was not in itself
>necessarily confrontational or offensive.
>i keep hearing echoes of Culture and History in this particular Activity,
>Theoretically, anyway.
>(does humor help?)
>
>i have been trying desparately, and not too successfully to avoid the
>hierarchical struggles that bill b. describes.
>but they do exist, and they do shut out people's voices and limit what
>might be said
>and i don't want to escalate an aggressive dynamic, although if i don't
>just shut up, that may be how whatever i write will be perceived...
>
>
>
>kathie
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>.........Our words misunderstand us..............................
>.....We are our words, and black and bruised and blue.
>Under our skins, we're laughing....................................
>.........................Adrienne Rich..................................
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Katherine_Goff@ceo.cudenver.edu
>http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~katherine_goff/index.html
>
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:08 PST