Well, I think Diane has now actually moved to formulate the situation in
more "activity theory terms". Have you noticed that? Diane asked: "what do
you hope would result from your posting of the "joke" in the first place?"
This is really now an AT type of question. Or, one could say, the important
point to reflect upon is why, for what GOAL, and out of what MOTIVE the joke
was posted? Remember that goals are always conscious but motives are
not...Motives are also always stemming from broader societal processes and
reflective of them. The ultimate question is, then, what kind of a
real-life, practical activity could have given rise to the motives and goals
in question?
I am not sure this is a kind of situation that is worth spending a lot of
time. But the point is that the real answers are to be found in the AT type
of analysis.
And, by the way, i always felt that this listserve was incredibly lucky in
terms of having many wonderfully voiceful, insightful, and outspoken women
who often dominate, push, and frame the discussions. Just an impression. I
hope it continues this way.
Anna Stetsenko
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Hodges [mailto:dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:49 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: outside what?
Hello me dears. i am going to go through this once and once only. (you're
welcome) hee hee
Family Man quotes me:
>
>> it
>> is irritating, frankly, to see an article i wrote
>> on this very subject be offered for relevance and at the same time
>> summarily dismissed
>> as "experience" and not considered more usefully as theory....
>> furthermore, as theory that speaks
>> directly to the activity of defending sexism here, and how it is that
>the
>> "women" are asking for a perspective
>> that the "men" are indicating is unnecessary.
>>
and then writes
>
>Diane,
>I must admit that I am ultimately frustrated by your view regarding my
>thoughts on your paper. I never said that your paper was not theoretical
>in
>nature but rather that if I were to write of my experience I wouldn't
>reference the same authors you chose, this is not a right or wrong thing.
> I
>was the one who used the word valid and then in your replay you said you
>weren't looking for validity.
ok first off, you assume i was referring to your thoughts and i wasn't,
actually.
the general response since publication has been on the "experience" and
while that is gratifying,
it is also frustrating to realize that experience does not produce any
recognized realm of theory.
it was not personal. it has nothing to do with validity, really, but with
"legitimacy" and that whole "peripheral participation" thing, specifically
relating to CoPs, and that whole fantasy of beautific cooperation.
>
>
>This is obviously a no win situation regarding this topic because
>anything I
>write will be construed in this community of practice metaphor that
>circles
>about as a dog chasing its tail.
i can't comment on this, because, as i say, it really wasn't personal -
although that you were
the only one to indicate you'd read the article perhaps singles you out...
i know others have read it,
and i still feel frustrated that it is, on the whole, received as
confession and not
as legitimate contributions towards a re-thinking of the ideal of
Actiivity and CoPs
and so on.
>
>
>By expressing my opinion I am not trying to invalidate anyone else's.
>But of
>course it is impossible for me to express this opinion without someone
>thinking I am trying to discount some phantom power I obviously must
>possess.
okay well now this is just martyr complex isn't it? isn't the preferred
practice one of
opinion? and isn't opinion basically a complex of competitive ideas? you
assume that you are "wrong"
when in fact you are quite suited for the dominant community here, which is
no doubt why you linger.
your gestures towards empathy are not unappreciated, the "if i were...'
but in theory,
you are not anyone else than who you are, and if you are not willing to
reflect on that,
then everything else is gratuitous, isn't it?
if i were i white guy with tenure, i'd be a really cool person.
if i were black i'd totally understand ghetto culture.
if i were hispanic, i'd totally support Taco Bell... and J-Lo, and ...
whatever.
i CAN'T know what it's like to be anyone other than who i am.
if "IFs" and "BUTs" were candies and nuts, we ALL would fill our pockets.
it doesn't matter what your "IFs" amount to,
and that isn't personal, it's just the reality of Being in the world. to
learn from others involves
a certain amount of complicity.
that's all.
>
>
>Phillip mentioned this experiment was unethical and maybe we could
>channel
>this discussion toward that end because I admit I posted that joke with
>the
>intention of discussing this community of practice metaphor and how it is
>a
>house of cards when something as abstract as a joke is discussed.
well perhaps if you had prefaced the "joke" with a perspective towards
that,
it might have been differently received.
by the same token, we ALL are familiar with derogatory humour,
and "jokes" that are expressed at the discomfort of others,
so... really, what was the agenda?
>
>
i really wonder what "community" means to folks here,
when apparent "inside" jokes are bantered about, ... what were you
thinking would be the outcome or consequence?
knowing there are feminists (men and women) in this community,
what do you hope would result from your posting of the "joke" in the first
place?
diane
>
****************************************************************************
********
"Things do not change: people change."
Henry David Thoreau
****************************************************************************
*********
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
vancouver, bc
mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, pointe claire, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST