At 7:30 PM -0400 10/13/03, anonymous wrote:
I was a bit concerned about how, taken together, [the clips] may have left international students looking somewhat 'weak.' The question I posed today was "who is the subject of mentorship?" I added that I was concerned about representing the international students as 'weak subjects.'
I appreciate that as an editing decision, this may have been assembled to
punctuate the similarities and differences in discussion between the groups.
However, there were many more articulate and insightful comments made that
were not included in the assemblage shown today. I don't want to get ahead
of the video-making process, but I think that some of those other comments
may have left a much different impression, had they been included, or
assmebled differently. Namely, the articulation of how we - as graduate
students (not simply internationals) - negotiate the challenges of being at
a large institution, where we turn, and the resources that have been useful
to our needs.
At 8:50 AM -0400 10/14/03, Stephanie Jo Kent wrote:
It is certainly not my intention, and I can't imagine that it is Li's, to present international students as "weak" in any kind of way. Neither of us believe that....and I don't think anyone in the group does.
What would help me, if you could articulate it somehow, is how you saw the WHOLE sequence leading to an image of "weakness" ...
One thing that is "feeding" some of my selections, that I just clarified in my own mind as I was driving home last night, is some "judgement" about what I think will "get through" to Americans...the main intention that Li and I have articulated together, in various ways - repeatedly and at different stages in this process, is our desire to move beyond simplistic either/or's and get folks thinking more deeply about the complexities.
To that end, I think it is possible that there will be selections that dissatisfy some people, as well as omissions which seem more germane (Note: THAT would be helpful too, if there are some particular comments that you can recall - even just the gist of - that we could review). Ultimately, we have to hope that folks will be able to perceive the larger aim/goal of using the quotes we ultimately pick. Your comment on the increasing alienation is critical, I think, to pointing at a major failure in the orientation process, perhaps on two levels: one is that enough wasn't/isn't done initially to put supports in place to prevent such experiences, and the second (I'm speculating) is that university administrators feel they have discharged their "duty" if folks survive the first semester...perhaps an assumption that needs to be questioned.
At 12:38 PM -0400 10/14/03, anonymous wrote:
A 'weak' subject is not a 'strong' subject. A 'strong' subject is
one that "never gives up on their desire," as Lacan says, one that "keeps
going!" One sets oneself a goal and works hard to maintain fidelity to it.
That is a 'strong' subject, in the theoretical sense of the term, not a
'weak' subject who remains 'subject to' in a passive, non-productive sense.
The entire clip - yes - appeared to leave internationals looking 'weak' in
the non-productive, passive sense. I do not recall any of the comments that
opened that meeting (you could review these); namely, how we think that
mentoring is largely a process of helping one another, of senior grads
'coaching' junior grads, of proofing written work, of talking about suitable
advisors and courses, of negotiating a large institution as graduate
students. These comments were made, as it were, from 'strong' subjects.
What I saw was something else. The selected clips were comments in response
to solicitation of anecdotes about our 'first encounters' in the USA,
perhaps to generate discussion, but artificial in light of what had already
been said. These seemed to amount to different internationals identifying /
complaining about 'differences' (which amounts to the same thing), and their
shyness about talking to professors - all of which are personal,
psychological, and temporary challenges that prevents not one of those
students from getting A's, assistantships, grant money, MA's or PhD's.
Together, that group 'appeared' rather 'weak' insofar as the clips (as I
recall) did not show the proactive discussion: perhaps it is this that the
administration could stand to see, that we are not helpless!
I like that you have been thinking about what might 'get through' to the
administrators, so our conversation here will not be for not! I really think
that what needs to get through is that international students may look,
speak, and act in ways that may 'appear' different, but those appearances
will ultimately be eclipsed by the ways in which internationals are
thinking, disciplined, learned, working, empowered agents. We looked like
that in segments that were not shown.
... what international students 'need' is
pretty much the same as what any new graduate student needs - to get a
handle on the requirements of their degree program and the structure of the
institution ('the ropes' as they say), AND an expectation that the
department and the institution will be responsive later to questions as they
arise (which does NOT necessarily mean "solving them" - 'responsive' in the
sense that we have knowledge of the venue in which to ask X and Y, and then
be provided with an answer). ... the university is responsible ONLY for the orientation, after which the onus is on me (as it is on you, Bill, Joanna...) to go about negotiating the process of reading, writing, testing, and finishing. That I feel alien has nothing to do with mentoring: I *am* alien, just as is Raz, David, Iris, George... The subject of that statement is a 'strong' subject.
At 12:09 AM -0400 10/15/03, li gu wrote:
Although Steph's response has said essentially what I would like to say,
here is my version:
First of all, I believe that a weak image of international student has never
been an intent or intended effect of this mentoring project. Paradoxically
though, a general goal of this project was to empower the international
graduate students, to facilitate their being on campus, in the academe, and
in the U.S. Does that then presuppose a relatively weak-er image of
international students, vis-a-vis the U.S. students? Logically speaking, I
would say "yes, to some extent." However, this relative weakness is unlikely
to be a matter of "image" alone. Apart from the discursively constructed
weaker-ness, I think, the international students are weaker in some "real"
senses. If this is case, a task of the mentoring project, I think, is to
explore these weaknesses: What are they? How are they produced and
maintained? And what can we do with them?
From this perspective, while other participants address weaknesses in
linguistic, cultural (East v.s. West), racial or ethnic terms, which more or
less echoes and reinforce the stereotypical view of international students,
your experience of alienation over the years challenges the myths of the
power-ful White middle-class Western Man. Further, your problematic
border-crossing experience draws attention to the ironically neglected
dimension of nation and challenges the widely accepted image of the
international student. Actually, George immediately picked up the national
difference and shared his experience with the U.S. national boundary as a
Chinese student.
As Raz reminded us, to the extent that "the international student" is a
floating signifier, our weaknesses are not absolute but relative vis-a-vis
U.S. domestic students in the contemporary U.S. context. When set in a
different contexts, what we now see as weaknesses may become strengthes.
Noting against a potential ultimately relativist argument, George and you
further noted, the configuration of weaknesses are not compltely idle but
are related to the historically specific global distribution of political
economic power. For example, despite his/her share of weaknesses, a U.S.
student in China is likely to be "stronger" than a Chinese student in the
U.S.
Jolane asked yesterday, can weaknesses be viewed as something more/other
than the negative?
In the U.S. or any other national context, I agree that the international
students ARE (alien) subjects in their own rights, and we may celebrate
ourselves as such - just as Raz likes to be different, and George takes
pride in difference. But nonetheless, we are also in the process of
becoming. We strive hard to become someone we are not yet. In this sense,
international graduate students are no more incomplete than the U.S.
students are. Actually, I'd posit that a potential discovery of this project
may be that many but not all problems many international students have are
also shared by many U.S. students: that we all have problems and that there
is something that the system can do for all of us, with better-informed
nuances. In my view it would be a pleasant result if this project ends up
beneficial to a group that is larger than its original aggregate.
Finally, isn't it necessary/inevitable to claim certain weaknesses, or
incompleteness, in order to BECOME a/the subject?
Certainly, let's keep talking ...
Let me be clear, and candid. The comments in the follow-up response above are not only conservative, they are potentially dangerous:
"My chief argument here is that if we want to represent international students as strong subjects of mentorship for an American audience, we'll first need to represent them as weak subjects of mentorhip - not because that's what they are but because that is what they are expected to be."
This misses the point articulated originally, AND it misses the point of a video to begin with.
I do not wish for international students to be represented in ways that 'they are expected to be' (does that include funny accents and odd expressions?). I have participated in this project PRECISELY because international (non-American) students are "expected" to be/appear weak. That is, my participation has been precisely to SHOW that we are not as we are expected to be. International grad students do NOT need to be represented in the way that we are expected to be - not initially nor at any point in the project.
For the most part (and the comment above re: traditional intercultural training supports this), mentorship means 'pity.' *That* is a radical humanism: "give us your tired, your poor, I'll piss on 'em / That's what the Statue of Bigotry says / Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death and get it over with" (Lou Reed, "Dirty Blvd," 1989). I would want international students to appear in this video only as crafty, self-sufficient, industrious, and determined as they are. That is why I have appeared at the meetings and spoken on camera in the ways that I have. I can only hope that my 'strong' statements will make the final cut.
SO, on the one hand, if the purpose of this project is to give the administration what they already know, to give them what they expect, to give them what they have dealt with all along (kind of like the current theoretical level of analysis in cultural studies), then there is no debate and nothing to talk about: there is no need for this video and you will have not spent the money responsibly.
The Administration is not stupid. They have granted $10 000 to this project; they know something about the mentorship process and have invested in it. Do you really think they need to be coddled to appreciate an alternative view of internatonal students, a view that we have been given the chance to produce? Do we need to hold their hands, show them what they know in order to make them see differently?
On the other hand, Joyce is Joyce.
Re: the above comment
Funny: Lou Reed's "New York" is the disc I have in my discman as I sit down to check the blog. I guess this is a good start to sorting things out.
Dear "subject", as I was reading your comment I was almost positive that you'd missed my point completely. But when I got to the end I wasn't so sure anymore. "Joyce is Joyce." - I take that last comment to indicate that the disagreement between us is not so poignant.
I agree with you wholeheartedly: "I would want international students to appear in this video only as crafty, self-sufficient, industrious, and determined as they are." Exactly my point. That's the aim. BUT! Does the general U.S. public perceive international students as such? I would say no.
Now, let me pose my argument again in a slightly different manner. Consider this: If I would like to prove to you that black was actually white, I could go about it in at least two different ways. A, I could look you in the eye and with great candor say: "Look, black is white. Please accept that from me, for I know it's true. Let me show you why you were wrong." Or, B, I can say the following to you: "OK, so you're saying black is black. That's an interesting notion, and there are a lot of facts out there that prove your point. But let me suggest an alternative point of view to you: Let's posit for a moment that black is white. Let me then show you where that argument takes us, and then you decide which point of view is closer to the truth and which can help us make the world a better place."
I believe that the latter move has more persuasive power than the former. Perhaps it's less radical than the one you're suggesting, but I believe that doesn't make it less legitimate. Showing U.S. administrators what they thought was true (the disempowered, stumbling international student) and then helping them make the transition to a view that is closer to the expreience we, international students, live every day - I think this is a procedure that respects both sides equally and can produce desired change.
I'm still working on the "Joyce is Joyce" bit. %-/
Does it refer back to David's comment about a question from a mentor?
"What do you think was the big deal about Joyce's "Ulysses"? We said things like language, the treatment of time, fragmentation of plot etc. etc. He said sure, that's all very true, but the essence of Joyce's genius was that he could take what people knew and transform it into something that people have never seen before. These are the people, he said, who drive the history of literature forward."
If so, then I definitely like the nod to our transformative potential. :-) Yeah, baby! Let's go!
Meanwhile, I've been perseverating (as I will) over homework and its myriad intersections with this project. To wit:
I just finished Chapter 5, in Thomas Farrellís ìNorms of Rhetorical Culture,î which is all about Habermas. I just posted on him earlier! (Love that coincidental thang.) I do not understand all the ìinsî and ìoutsî of Farrellís critique, but a number of quotes caught my attention; thereís some Burke in here too (and Perelman, on audience). They struck me because of the challenges of facilitating the coming together of two groups ñ comm. faculty and staff, and comm. grad students. The grad students will be meeting for the third time, so they (we!) have a deeply developed discourse; the faculty will be meeting for the second timeÖtheir discourse hasnít had as much opportunity to evolve. And weíll be meeting together.
Apparently Habermas identifies two levels ìof influence and value commitment. The former is clearly supposed to be rhetorical, while the latter is not.î I am taking ìrhetoricalî here as persuasive, and the enactment of value commitment then might be functional as an expression of identity? Farrell makes no attempt to describe these, and in fact criticizes Habermas for being ìunable to distinguish them when viewing them through the lens of actual practice.î But he also characterizes Habermas as ìgoing to war against two competing ways of modeling communication itself: as commodified signification (Baudrillard) and as a regime of discursively constituted power (Foucault)î (all above quotes from p. 212). While I ainít crazy about the war imagery, I am drawn to the idea of HOPE for discourse and the social (re)construction of reality. :-)
Check out these quotes (in many instances I am reading ìdiscourseî or ìface-to-face communicationî in place of ìrhetoricî ñ I often read these as synonyms):
ìRhetoric is the primary ñ indeed, the only ñ humane manner for an argumentative culture to sustain public institutions that reflect on themselves, that learn, so to speak, from their own history.î Farrell: 213.
ìÖfor Burke, the negative isÖintrinsic to our human conditionî (209). The act of negation by "subject" above is exactly what we need more of, at least, if I understand the concept properly ñ the means or ability to say ìno, I disagree.î This is one of the tools by which we get to Habermasí ideal speech situation, isnít it? Not that I think weíre going to be THAT good next Sunday (!), butÖthere is a whiff of possibility in the air! It could be that we ìreally disagreeî on some things (as Farrell says about Mario Cuomoís speech on abortion, p. 216), and, simultaneouslyÖîthere are dangers of inclusion here as well. In the pure tolerance of pluralism, only the institution seems to be held in common. Within its bounds are any number of incompatible norms and valuesî (217). HmmmÖFarrell says this becomes ìa problem of propriety ñ where to draw the line in the grounding of argumentsî (218). Continuing with the critique of Cuomoís speech, Farrell concludes that it was ìan attempt to characterize the collectivity in such a way that convictions of participant groups may be protected without these same convictions being endorsed as a governing rule for the conduct of allî (221). Iím curious what Farrell will say (in the next chapter) about developing the concept of ìplausibility, a notion which allows that in public life the same verbal or nonverbal utterance may actually mean different things to different people. And, more radically still, it may even be that this is not such a bad thingî (228). It seems likely this will tie back in to what he was saying about audiences: ìjudgments about audiences, much like judgments by audiences, are neither certain nor absolute. They are probable. This does not mean they are random or arbitrary, only that they are debatableî (226). Which leads into this idea, which I rather like: ìif judgment is treated as an acquired competence, sophisticated through practice, the prospect for its democratization is considerably more promisingî (228).
Returning to Burke (as presented by Farrell): ìFor Burke, the very meaning of symbolic actionÖmust include notions of identification and division, struggle, and tension, as well as more inclusive modes of engagement ñ above all, an unfinished inferential quality that continues the ongoing ontological conversation of real life. For Burke, in other words, there is no contradiction ultimately between discourse practice that is always suspect and practice that is the best available embodiment of human civilityî (204). All of this is by way of returning to Habermasí ideality suppositions as a feature of everyday institutions (like ours!): ìOn the basis of what he regards as the definitional interdependence of autonomy and solidarity, Habermas postulates that in any setting involving communicative action, the individual arguers or advocates are on their own, but are bound by their own good faith to recognize their mutual embeddedness in a community of discourseî (200).
I think we can do it. :-)