Sorry folks, I was in the middle of writing the last message -- hit the send
accidently
Thanks to Bill for naming what is so simple after all --
>
>Devices as patronization and sarcasm (mea culpa) do not work, but again, it
is in the interpretation and in tolerance -- was that really patronization
or an clumsy attempt of politeness? Was that really sarcasm or an attempt
at finding humor in the situation?
I wonder if inconsideration is always a sign of vulnerability.
I know that the meaning of that statement will be very different, depending
on who reads it.
I address it to myself.
Sometimes it's hard to write from a "place of power" & non-vulnerability.
From that position, it's easier to be gracious and generous towards the
perceived flaws of others, which are after all only signs of our own.
I can't agree with Bruce, however, that we should assume a legal stance,
read only the referential content of messages, avoid discussion of "tone,
mode of address" -- It makes sense to do that, doesn't it? for the reasons
Bruce cited: It's more difficult to come to agreement on "tone." For me,
this problem suggests a different solution -- it is a reminder to all of us
who listen for relational cues to go at them sideways, without accusing
individuals of not being whomever we want to be on the "other side" of us.
Mea culpa.
I also think that Bill's suggestion to pay attention to who takes the floor
is another possible 'solution.' Finally, no solutions are final.
Judy
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 - 17:54:11 PST