I really did it this time. Son-of-a-bitch! Of course, there was no way to predict what would come out of the mentoring projectís group sessions: who and how many people would ìriseî to the occasion. An impressive number of people have ñ and now the different discourses must be somehow brought together, and it ainít gonna be easy! Graduate students have applied their skills and expertise to a considered critique of the faculty, one that (dare I label it?) smacks of radical humanism ñ a respect and concern for each individual and the hope that there will be an outcome from these discussions that improves the climate in the department itself.
In other words, it seems most of the student participants believe talking makes a difference, that the habitualized social realit(ies) of the department as an organization is a social construction which can be altered by our collective communication processes. That we can choose, together, to make things better. Yet there are concerns too ñ here we are, where the rubber meets the road ñ has anything weíve done to date as peers and colleagues prepared us to attempt to bridge the distance between us and faculty? Can we ñ as grad students ñ bring what we know to the table? This is the newest presentation of one of the major areas of discussion at every student session so far ñ what kinds of questions can even be asked?
The ultimate version of this question is, I think, can we invite faculty to move beyond reflexivity to concrete action within/among themselves in order to participate in changing the material and social conditions of our department such that mentoring relationships are less riven with politics?
Yes, the ìset-upî is that this has become an organizational intervention. I was elated about this a month ago (!) when I realized that what weíve got to date lays the groundwork for the potential to affect the larger university; this was long before the realization sank in (this morning!) that this final step will require an enactment of facilitation that no one has formally nominated me to undertake.
It seems to me that to answer the question about ideal outcomes of mentoring in a powerful and provocative way, all the ìstudent cardsî of confusion, dissatisfaction, and even outright critique must be laid on the table along with the ìfaculty cardsî and (hopefully) ìstaff cardsî. This means asking people to engage across the boundaries of status and role differences; to step outside of their own habits, disciplinary and methodological purviews, and personality conflicts. Damn audacious of me to make such a request! Let alone attempt to facilitate a process conducive to this accomplishment.
I think what I will need to do to get ìall the cards on the tableî ñ will be to have to make this part of the presentation myself, and not rely on taped footage of studentsí criticisms to get the point across. Someone has to say ìall the bad thingsî in order to move us all in the direction I think we want to goÖthis will concentrate the risks in me, yet ñ by virtue of the project itself and my role to date ñ mine seems to be the objective role most likely to shield whoever is ëthe messengerí from negative consequences. There is a kind of ìprotectionî I can claim because of my involvement with the task and the process that others canít.
We can then choose footage to show that emphasizes the connections, overlaps, benefits, visions etc., protecting students from undesirable consequences yet still illustrating and promoting the rich range of diverse participation that has characterized the project up until this point.
Habermas' fingerprint is on my thinking:
ìTo approach the ideal speech situation is to develop our humanityî; how? By ìexpos[ing] the constraints to unrestrained communication in the past and present.î
"A consistent, adequate understanding of the empirical-analytic sciences demands the existence...of an open, self-critical community of inquirers" (Bernstein, 1976).
Quotes from "Practical and Emancipatory Interests in Organizational Symbolism: A Review and Evaluation" by Ralph Stablein and Walter Nord, in Journal of Management, 1985, Vol 11, No2, 13-28.
from emails:
"...excitement could be created
by foregrounding the potential for addressing deprartmental issues in a neutral space created and sustained by the Mentorship Project. I would frame Nov 2 not as an intellectual enterprise but as a safe opportunity to turn concerns into dialogue and building a better scientific community."
"...the mentorship project is becoming mindful
of its reflexive nature. It raises questions that change the intellectual scene it inquires into...I think this reflexivity can be made instrumental in getting other people excited about Nov 2. The key to getting others excited is showing them that yeah, free food is great, but so is turning tables and affecting the entire setup in a way that makes this a better place FOR YOU!!!!! If dialogue across the boundaries is brought about, YOU will have the tremendous advantage of placing yourself in the dialogue, and locating yourself in the intellectual
landscape! And that's crucial to YOUR academic carrer. Working in your office
24/7 is great and laudable, but anyone who's had experience working in the Real World knows that knowing what is going on in your organization, talking in the copier room or by the water fountain is just as important for your
success in the organization as the work hours you put in. And why would academia be a place outside/above/beyond the real world? If you know where you stand in the intellectual geography of the Communication field, you'll know who to turn to and who will respond. You won't be alone."
Another email:
"I cannot agree more on the instrumental role which the students - we - can play in this process. Personally, I've had experiences challenging, directly or indirectly, some faculty's academic biases, and I believe all of
us are doing that one time or another. Such challenge I believe can lead to the maturation of faculty individually, which in turn may lead to their downing of boundary and fusion of horizons. However, this may as well not
happen as long as academic maturation is taken as individual property or something like that. So my point was to make things, including indifference, contradiction, maturation, if any, (more) public. Community must have some common public (physical, mental, spiritual, and virtual) space, i think. And that's where some institutional approach can make some difference."
More email:
"Wrking a bit backwards, this is where we started:
I kept thinking about the usefulness of the idea of community or the lack
thereof. Finally, i still think it is somewhat useful in the sense that it
offers some "positive" imageÖ I think professional hierarchy and disciplinary boundary (and probably some other negative stuff) have been reified in our dept. to the
extent that they solidify into certain intolerances and/or indifference. And
what has been called "liberal individualism" has kept the walls and borders
intact. Dare I posit that faculty group may assume most responsibility for this
condition and also for correcting it, so that the students have a healthy model
to follow? I am not critiquing any individual but the atmosphere to which we all belong."
Response:
"I can feel that intolerance/indifference myself sometimesÖMy take on it is that THAT can be something the faculty can be mentored on. Communication is such a young discipline, and it was even younger when most faculty members were formulating their views on what communication is. I feel that even though they talk a lot about starting a dialogue between one another, they were initiated into the "tribe" when there was a lot of fighting going on about whose view of communication will earn dominance. I think that is still going on today, to a certain extent, maybe not as much as in the 70s, but it's still there - and it should be, because the Communication field needs to sort itself out. I think that we, the Next Generation (aaah... too much Star Trek....) are more tolerant, and can afford to be so, because at least Communication doesn't have to fight for the legitimacy of Depts. of Comm. and so the atmosphere is, I suppose, a bit more relaxed. I think students can be absolutely instrumental in starting the dialogue under the new circumstances, plainly because we are students, so we can ask those stupid questions about basic assumptions behind media effects theory or CA and what those assumptions have to do with Comm. without piercing anyone's ego.
And I do think that all of this is about forming a community, and communities within the communityÖBut "community" is a term that can be loaded in many ways, so I guess the question about ideal outcomes leaves more room for the emergence of further (and perhaps better) unifying concepts."