Nate writes:
>I don't want to impose a grand object on xcma, but rather contemplate
>if multivoicedness was our object, what questions would open up or in what
>ways could we look at the contradictions differently.
i agree with what i hear you suggesting,
but i think it will take more than finding those illusive questions.
if multivoicedness (what a mouthful!) was our object, or is our object,
or might be the object of some of the participants,
we would also look at _how_ the questions get asked,
who is not encouraged (or actively discouraged) to ask them,
what questions get dismissed as impossible or "not for the likes of us" or
even dismissed because they weren't asked properly.
what _are_ the rules? how do we know?
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:10 PST