Hi Kathie and everybody--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katherine Goff [mailto:Katherine_Goff@ceo.cudenver.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 10:18 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re(2): Rules not to call me a dummy
>
>
> Tatiana translates: (and beautifully, i think)
> >"We don't have the power to hear
> > Our words echoing in other minds and souls, --
>
>
> but don't we have to act as if we did?
yes, i think this is what is called "prolepsis," something that people take
for granted.
> how compatible is this perception (one i share, by the way)
> with a belief in socially constructed knowledge? or activity theory?
in my view, the beauty of social contruction is its interactivity. for
example, my undergrad students, preservice teachers, are "obsessed" in
search for their actions that would be always "sensitive" for all kids and
all time. i understand their anxiety always to be nice and good but, in my
view, they miss the point hat senstivity is by-product of interaction rather
than a property of action. the paradox is that senstivity is how
participants handle emerging insensitivity. For example, an Arab friend of
mine like to talk to me almost touch his nose to mine. It makes me really
uncomfortable and I move away from him which makes him very uncomfortable
and he moves toward me. So we are moving around when we talk. Initially, I
started feeling (not even thinking) about him as being a bit agressive and
he started feeling (as he told me later) about me as a bit snoby. Once we
confronted each other about why we were so chasing one another. Together we
developed many jokes about our behavior (e.g., he said that I probably
smelled bad that was why I tried to move away from him, while I told him
that he was crossing my eyes by moving too close). This discussion changed
feelings about each other. We try to adjust to each other but even if we
start moving again, we tease each other and that takes care of our comfort
by itself.
>
> if i don't speak up, contradict, disillusion someone
> when they tell me what "we" are doing, or why, or what the "truth" is,
> it seems that i am supporting not only the statement that i might disagree
> with,
> but the speaker's belief that others share this perception of truth.
I think what is going on is that both of you try to manage your "emerging
intersubjectivity" which by itself is a social construction.
> so, i come back to silence
> as a response
> as a kind of complicity (but, oh! there are dangerous echoes there!)
I think there can a be danger to reduce interaction and dialogue to a
"ping-pong" game of exchanges and individuals' discrete thinking of what
counterpart is thinking and so on. It seems that it is more useful as
individuals' contributions to management of "emerging intersubjectivities."
Besides, the image of interaction as discrete exchanges ahs its own limits
because of a lot of paralell communicative processes and flows are going on
(e.g., non-verbal communcation).
>
> what i am hoping for is some alternate route
> than through the narrow, churning waters between the rock and the hard
> place . . .
What do you think?
Eugene
>
> 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 - 17:54:13 PST