I was sorry I hadn't read Nate's, Katherine's, or diane's messages in the
be-labouring exchange, before sending mine...
It isn't very often that I perform the policeperson; she is among us, though.
Thinking about CHAT & ethics, I want to acknowledge how very un-CHAT-like
that policeperson was, IMHO. A bit of mimesis at work? (performing the
other). Which leads me to try to articulate what CHAT does entail
axiologically [i.e., relationally/ value-wise], which might be considered
relevant to a discussion of LBE.
What sorts of interventions into unproductive person-person
bickering/bullying/whatever would I consider CHAT-like? I prefer those that
function like mini-lessons, brief, on-the-spot, explicit, but also
wizardly, slanted away from the parties themselves, indirect in that sense,
and implicative of CHAT-concerns. Humor is one primary resource, though it
can also be used aggressively and so unproductively. The "rule" that I
would propose (if it were not so very unCHATty to do so) for this sort of
self-correcting gesture of a CHAT listserve is that the unit of concern not
be individuals but their interaction. The trick is that we have learned to
duel through discourse, without admitting our investment in winning -- as
if what really mattered were the ideas at stake and not our ownership of
them; thus, any reference to the interaction risks running into defensive
tactics on the part of one or the other individual.
Another problem, specifically with wizardly interventions, is that the
wizard is free to name an issue with respect to interactions without being
implicated in the naming. This is something that I have experienced in
situations where someone plays 'wizard' (not necessarily one who belives in
wizards, btw....)
Any other ideas?
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:06 PDT