I think it interesting how our dialogues - well, assisted monologues, maybe,
are dividing along lines of gender, and race, and class. Well, maybe not
"interesting" but entirely to be expected. And so on one side we have folks
who want to approach this rationally, with rules, and on another, folks who
are pushing into the soggy murky areas of authentic expression of
contradictions and feelings and complexities of engagement in social spaces
- and there are other sides, of course, to this multi-sided entity that we
are.
And btw (by the way), the specific rules listed will not advance our
dilemmas one iota, because who are we going to haul in to determine how we
will evaluate a message for its sexism, racism, and other important 'isms?
Solomon is not available at the present time.
But people, smart people, have written about these problems, and maybe we
could think of reading, collectively, a set of 2 or 3 articles dealing with
precisely the kinds of dialogue we are having:
something by Chandra T Mohanty on liberalism and equity and
institutionalized discrimination
something by Ellsworth on difference/s
something by Burbules on dialogue across differences
something you might suggest ......?
My only plea, here, would be that we not see this this talking as
"uninteresting" or "a waste of time" or "off topic - can't we just go back
to the good old days?".
mary
-- Dr. Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education, UBC GenTech Project http://www.shecan.com Curriculum Vitae http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.htmlTo alter efficacy-based futility requires development of competencies and expectations of personal effectiveness. By contrast, to change outcome-based futility necessitates changes in prevailing environmental contingencies that restore the instrumental value of the competencies people already possess. Bandura-- 1977
---------- >From: "Nate Schmolze" <schmolze@students.wisc.edu> >To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >Subject: RE: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions >Date: Tue, Feb 22, 2000, 7:19 AM >
> Bruce, > > A few comments on your message. But, first before the month is done, I'd > like to thank you for your detailed responses to myself, Paul, and Judy. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Robinson [mailto:bruce.rob@btinternet.com] > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 8:31 AM > To: 'xmca list' > Subject: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions > > Bruce said: > > "that there are a small number of basic rules that should be taken as > guidelines by everyone and enforced by the listowner, but that beyond those > rules trying to enforce a particular > tone, form of greeting etc is counter-productive". > > I think your right, but I have not seen the discussion as attempting to > propose a cook book of any sorts. What I have taken thus far from the > discussion is increasing a basic set of rules would be counterproductive, > but that does not mean introspection or reflection does not have an > important function. I would also caution an interpretation that situates the > current discussion in the Daly thread. Similar tensions and themes go way > back and are what in some ways motivated the seperate x-lists. Historically > such tensions cause an outburst, collective silence, and then business as > usual. I think there is a sense by some on the list that they don't want to > go down that road again. So, the introspection that you find so frustrating > can be seen by some as breaking the historic pattern mentioned above. > > Bruce said: > > "On my second point, I think we should register that on XMCA things do work > out pretty well most of the time. It is never going to be possible to rule > out all inequalities of power, authority etc on an email list existing in an > unequal world, but one thing that does strike me about XMCA is that graduate > students can join the list and have their work taken seriously in the spirit > that others may learn from it; that there's a generally tolerant atmosphere > and that ideas tend not to be dismissed out of hand. That's not bad." > > I think what you say here is important, and that is also why many see the > introspection as important. You are of course right that it is not possible > to rule out all inequalities of power, but inequalities can be either > implicit or explicit. In this sense the questions Kathie asked in a prior > message can not be resolved by creating rules, but only through > introspection. > > I think there are two ways to look at introspection or reflection; its > purpose for something else (e.g. finding contradictions in the system to be > resolved), and its importance for itself. The latter of course also changes > the system but not systematically or directly. In general, I would situate > the current introspection with the latter in that it is seen as important, > good, and useful in itself not necessarily to resolve some contradiction > within the system. > > NATE > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:11 PST