Ah, well, Eric
I must disagree with you there: I cannot see that having a large part
(PROBABLY a majority in our specific case) of list subscribers who are
members of some kind of public education faculty is enough to constitute a
monolithic social order. For that there would have to be a lot more
conformity than would be produced merely by the similarity of concerns
arising from being involved in similar activities and being in similar
positions in society.
So perhaps my choice of word as a summary of your observations of the xmca
was not so accurate? I mean, our disagreement may be located either in the
definition of a monolithic order, or in the accuracy of describing the xmca
in those terms.
I don't know if that makes our exchange into a conflict - it's pretty
tricky over email to establish frames of reference just to know what we're
talking about.
BTW, I disagree with you about the Internet as "a great practice in
anonymity" as well - it is the participants in Net activity that practice
anonymity or its opposite (would that be personification?). There are
choices on many levels in that respect - I mean it can be written into the
software, into the institutional practices for assigning accounts, etc.,
and anonymity or "personification" is certainly one of the aspects of the
"style" of interactive writing we adopt, individually and as a group (local
mailinglist culture). And in THAT respect my perception of the xmca is that
participants here tend to orient their writing towards making themselves
AND others into persons. I know that there are differences within the
subscriber collective concerning that perception, and my way of expressing
it - it's not a new discussion. But your perception/point of view may be
even more different than that, Eric?
regards
Eva
PS. Thanks for the roses, Phillip. And yes, the group of "heavy posters"
has shifted over the years, "always" has. There's a sort of "rolling
stability" if viewed over the years. I cannot say whether (and when) there
have been discontinuous shifts, without putting in more work than I have
time for right now.
And Bill: I am waiting for you to get back from the skateboard park to
the xmca. Are YOU waiting for people who don't post enough, according to
Zipf's law, to explain why they don't? Well, Mike did, I guess (greetings
to your wife :-)
At 17.38 -0400 01-08-04, MnFamilyMan@aol.com scrobe:
>In a message dated 8/4/2001 4:56:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
>eva.ekeblad@goteborg.utfors.se writes:
>>Whatever the social order is that produces this mailstream, it is not a
>>monolith (as Eric seems to suggest). The list has more than one function and
>>people post for more than one reason... no, make that: people post for more
>>than one single SET of reasons (see what I mean?)
>
> Perhaps the monolith that exists is the amount of contributors who are
>members of public education faculty. I stand as a member of that
>group,
>anyone else want to plead guilty? Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:01:57 PDT