Hi Bruce and everybody--
Bruce wrote,
> I find it significant that nobody has replied directly to Philip Capper's
> points about why _he_ doesn't feel part of the XMCA community (which is
> just what he predicted, of course).
>I tend to share some of them, in that
> for me XMCA is not a community that is central to my work or
> self-identity,
> but somewhere I dip into and out of, read some interesting things,
> occasionally write to, get feedback from etc. Perhaps that's why I find a
> lot of the community-defining discussion is not useful.
In my view, community, democracy, collaboration, friendship, family have
always a cruel element which is people have freedom not to reply. They/we do
it for many reasons: they find it unnecessary or uninteresting; they are too
busy doing other things; they are tired; they currently prioritize other
things; they are insensitive; they are selfish; and so on... I for example,
did not even read Philip's posting and can't find it because for several
weeks I was dumping all xmca messages because I was extremely busy in
starting the spring semester and participating in numerous job searches and
other committees and projects at my U. Then a xmca friend of mine wrote to
me about some issues that he/she was experiencing at xmca and I started
glancing at incoming postings until Bruce's message attracted my full
attention (which co-occurred with the end of a job search that I'm closely
participated and ends of some other jobs I did).
The point that I try to make is we may have an ideal version of what is
community/collaboration/family/friendship that may be not only unreal but
also harmful for making exciting things to happen. Real authentic events
that change life are always coming from periphery. For me, xmca (as any
other community) is a place where events important for me may occur (or
not). It also place for invisible events, when I found later to be changed
because of my participation in xmca.
Responsiveness is very important for any community. No response is a
response you don't want to get. So many GREAT messages (is it modesty or
what?!) I that I sent to xmca were either not responded or responded in a
way I did not like. It is true that at some point this number of rejections
could been overwhelming for me to quit. Nevertheless, I'm glad that I didn't
and I'm glad that time-to-time people do reply. Each time I get somebody's
reply to my message I treat as magic rather take it for granted. It is magic
that people who never see you, who have busy lives, find not only time to
read but also compel to reply.
Finally, I'd like to read Philip's posting that Bruce referred because I'm
interested in why he does not feel comfortable to participate on xmca, in
learning how communities work (or don't), and what can be done to facilitate
a community. I want to add that Philip's recent posting that I read about
rules (see at the bottom) where he challenged the idea of developing xmca
rules because possible diverse interpretations, diverse local discourses,
and xmca ownership, was very influential for me and I think for other people
shaping the current discourse. His examples from Australia were very
informative!
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Robinson [mailto:bruce.rob@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 8:30 AM
> To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
> Subject: RE: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been incredibly busy over the last few days and am now off for ten
> days without regular email. I'm not ignoring this discussion or
> offended by
> anything anyone has said, just haven't had any time to write. I'll just
> make two points in a desparate rush and then fly.
>
> While Mary may make reasonable assumptions about my gender, I wonder how
> she can be so sure about my - or the others on the 'rules' side of the
> discussion - race or class (unless all academics are by definition middle
> class, in which case the list is less divided than she states)?
>
> I find it significant that nobody has replied directly to Philip Capper's
> points about why _he_ doesn't feel part of the XMCA community (which is
> just what he predicted, of course). I tend to share some of them, in that
> for me XMCA is not a community that is central to my work or
> self-identity,
> but somewhere I dip into and out of, read some interesting things,
> occasionally write to, get feedback from etc. Perhaps that's why I find a
> lot of the community-defining discussion is not useful.
>
> I'll catch up with this later.
>
> Bye for now
>
> Bruce
>
--------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Capper [mailto:pcapper@actrix.gen.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 9:01 AM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: RE: Too much introspection? Some practical suggestions
>
>
> I realise I had one additional thing to say about the following:
> >
> > Firstly, I think we'll find it fairly easy to agree on the
> following as a
> > set of basic ground rules (having said that I'll doubtless be
> > proved wrong
> > ;)):
> >
> > - Sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism and other forms of
> > discrimination are
> > not to be tolerated;
> >
> > - Ad hominem / feminam argument (i.e. argument aimed at the person /
> > personality of one's opponent rather than their substantive positions),
> > abuse and threats are not acceptable;
> >
> This all seems like stuff nobody would really take exception to. But
> the problem is one of interpetation and who is to guard the
> guardians.
>
> Here are just two problems to be faced:
>
> (1) It seems to me that even the linguisitic conventions associated
> with sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. expression in two such close
> countries as Australia and New Zealand can cause deep level
> misunderstandings. Across all English speaking countries there can be
> profound differences which can and do cause chaos on listservs. For
> example, the use of the work 'girl' in reference to a woman is
> strongly indicative of a sexist predisposition in some countries, but
> not in others. Early in this discussion Kathie ironically observed 'I
> know girls are supposed to be nice'. In some countries her irony
> would have been lost because the use of the word 'girl' does not
> carry the imlied attitude that Kathie gave to it.
>
> Who is to judge whether a contributor to this list who
> uses the word is giving evidence of sexism, or is totally innocent of
> such a charge? Linguistic context? Well, yes, but one of the
> strengths of email
> is the capacity for a conversational approach, and with conversation
> linguisitic contexts are often difficult to discern. If the solution
> to that is deemed to be the adoption of a sort of APA like style
> code, then the nature of the medium changes profoundly. I contribute
> to listservs because I can fire off ill-formed thoughts. If I have to
> compose my messages, then it ceases to be worth the effort.
>
> Even greater linguistic problems arise when the contributor is
> thinking in another language and translating into English. There was
> huge explosion on this list in 1994 or 1995 when some poor German
> contributor brought the roof down on his head when his translation of
> of a German phrase I can't remember was almost universally
> understood to be offensive in its English form.
>
> (2) There are fundamental contradictions embedded in adopting a
> portfolio of value sets deemed to be offensive while claiming to be
> inclusive. A current NZ example. We have a woman prime minister and a
> woman leader of the main opposition party. We also have a politically
> important and active indigenous people who demand and receive respect
> for their culture. A significant aspect of that culture is that some
> very important tribes do not allow women to speak in some specific
> parts of formal events - including major events of political
> discourse. So when our Prime Minister turns up at a significant Maori
> formal event (in some tribal areas only) the choice is between racism
> and sexism - you can't avoid both. There will, of course, need to be
> a resolution eventually. But it won't be achieved through anyone's
> imposed 'simple' rule.
>
> Phillip Capper
> Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business (WEB Research)
> PO Box 2855
> 9th Floor 142 Featherston Street
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
> Phone: (64) 04 499 8140
> Mobile: 021 251 9741
> Fx: (64) 04 499 8395
>
> phillip.capper@webresearch.co.nz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:12 PST