November 2003 Archives

We visited Isabelle and James today - they are doing great! So are their moms. :-) Hannah and [the FP] both got to hold each baby; I was occupied with cameras but insist my turn will come (muscling my way into the hug-fest wasn't where I was at today).

View image

FLEETING THOUGHTS
Alison Aubrecht

Revisiting Audism

Though by now many of you will have already be aware of what I am about
to include in my article, there are still numerous people who would
benefit from an introduction to the word Audism. So, keeping in mind
that some of us believe that deaf people, too, are capable of being
audists, here are two quotes to contemplate. They are from Harlan Lane's
THE MASK OF BENEVOLENCE. I encourage you to respond with your thoughts.

"Audism is the corporate institution for dealing with deaf people,
dealing with them by making statements about them, authorizing views of
them, describing them, teaching about them, governing where they go to
school and, in some cases, where they live; in short, audism is the
hearing way of dominating, restructuring, and exercising authority over
the deaf community." (p. 43)

"What would become of the audist establishment if deaf people were
allowed to educate deaf children using their most fluent language, the
language of their nation's deaf community? What would become of the
audist establishment if deaf children who chose not to wear hearing aids
were no longer required to do so; if deaf people were so well educated
that they required rehabilitation serves as infrequently as hearing
people? The answer is that if cultural deafness were accepted by hearing
professionals, the practices of some would only be slightly affected;
many otologists, audiologists, and hearing aid specialists, for example,
treat primarily hearing people who have become deaf, frequently late in
life. Other audists, however, would be more crucially affected: This
group includes teachers of deaf children, school psychologists and
administrators, and rehabilitation specialists." (p. 49)

The Tactile Mind Weekly #32 (see previous post for more info).

*****
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE?
Pamela Wright-Meinhardt

I'm so frustrated with this topic, from work related issues as well as
things that I have read, that I absolutely have to crawl out of my
carpal tunnel induced dexterity-impaired haze to poke away at the
keyboard and continue my haphazard series. There's obviously a need for
people outside the "deaf education system" (henceforth called the
System) to understand what's happening inside the System. Now, with a
jest on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law and its expectations that
every teacher be "highly qualified," I write this article.

I'm of two minds right now. On one hand, it constantly amazes me how
much the deaf education system is criticized by former students
everywhere. I wonder, how can someone who only experienced the System as
a student believe, with full honesty, that they can target elements
inside the System? How can they determine what is wrong without
experiencing the System in a different capacity than as a student? Maybe
experience it as a teacher? Or an administrator? As a parent? Or even as
an artist-in-residence? Do they know how much research is really out
there on the System? Do they really know what the literacy research
says? Do they realize how expertise, positive and rich, has been and
continues to be totally disregarded by people outside the System?

Let's just say, I'm often appalled at the ignorance outsiders display
when they criticize without really knowing the System.

Okay, on the other hand. . . *sigh* I understand! As a former student of
the System, and as an (admittingly) unrepentant Critic, I completely
share the indignation that so many of us feel. We go through the System
and are able to see what was done/not done, what happened to our friends
or classmates, or obvious literacy gaps, that we formulate opinions from
our conversations and readings. So we attack! We criticize, chop up,
pick apart, and scrutinize the System under a microscope. And that's not
all bad. Those inside the System do need to hear what outsiders do have
to say. Some mini-Systems are so shut out from the outside that they
perpetuate the same crimes from generation to generation.

Why do I jest, using the NCLB law? Because the people who advocated the
law and virtually all of the people involved in creating the law were
not from fields of education. They were psychologists, linguists,
doctors, politicians, and a celebrated speech therapist. The politicians
decided that all teachers must be "highly qualified" in their field of
expertise. So. That means what? Honestly, it means more paperwork, not
more quality. It means that people who are not the least bit cognizant
of how teachers function, or what truly makes a qualified teacher, are
making the rules for teachers.

Change the System? Yes! Please! I wish for nothing more than for my
students to become fully literate and say that they whupped the 'hearing
standard,' which, by the way, is an overlooked, over-celebrated 7th
grade average. Teach the Six Traits (check the website)? Oh yes. More
communication? Sure! A definition of literacy that encompasses more than
just English? YES! Bridge ASL and English? Yes, yes, yes!

But, dear me, talk to the insiders! We already have to deal with a
federal law written by clueless politicians... the last thing we need is
a literacy-rescue program created by people who know *zilch* about the
multitude of issues lying around the average System classroom. Believe
me, there are plenty of those out there already.

Keep criticizing, keep discussing. Don't stop! But, meanwhile, complete
your homework.

From The Tactile Mind Weekly #32 THE TACTILE MIND WEEKLY Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved. THE
TACTILE MIND WEEKLY is a free e-zine of the signing community, published
by The Tactile Mind Press (http://www.thetactilemind.com). To subscribe,
go to http://www.thetactilemind.com/weekly - Submissions are welcome.

MAN ON THE STREET
Christopher Jon Heuer

He Wrote About Ring Baloney and Disappeared

This is my version of hell: I'm condemned to float around for eternity
on a giant piece of ring baloney in a huge subterranean cavern that's
half-filled with ring baloney juice. The steam rising from the
bottomless depths sticks to my skin like a wet rubber hospital glove. I
have nothing to eat except lukewarm ring baloney chunks, I have nothing
to drink except lukewarm ring baloney juice, and there's just enough
murky light to assure that I'll always be able to see my ring baloney
raft bobbing up and down in the gentle lapping waves...

I tell you this not only because I honestly believe that ring baloney
numbers among the foodstuffs of Satan (which I do), but also to advance
the theory that a Deaf writer can write about something other than
deafness and not spontaneously self-combust. A lot of Deaf writers I
know start out with the intention of helping to make Deafness known to
the outside world. . . which is a good and noble intention, to be sure.
But we should (gasp!) also be writing about that outside world as if we
(gasp!) already lived in it, because we (gasp!) already do!

Take ring baloney. Does my opinion on this putrid, gut-wrenching
substance somehow not count because I'm Deaf? Are there some additional
social or physical criteria I have to meet before I can write about ring
baloney any old time I want to, just like a hearing writer can? And I
write my opinion on this nauseating non-food down, does doing so somehow
make me less Deaf because ring baloney has nothing to do with Deaf
Culture? Or is it possible to remain Deaf and still write about ring
baloney?

Hey, you never know. Ring baloney has lots of evil, hidden dark powers
that we don't fully understand. It could go either way.

Still, I think we should at least test it out--we could try being Deaf
*and* write about things other than Deafness once in a while. Just to
see if lightning bolts don't come thundering down out of angry black
skies, or if the pulsating (when we aren't looking) ring baloney in our
refrigerators doesn't come creeping up on us in the middle of the night,
entwine itself around our flailing limbs, and drag us shrieking off into
the gloom.

So I've written about ring baloney, and now I'm going to bed. If I'm
still around come morning, great. If not, remember me as brave and send
generous monetary donations to my wife and cat.

From The Tactile Mind Weekly #32

The dominant culture's derogatory use of "dyke" is celebrated/perpetuated in most dictionary definitions (a tool of control if ever there was one). To wit:

1. [n] Ýa barrier constructed to contain the flow of water or to keep out the sea
2. [n] Ýoffensive terms for a lesbian who is noticeably masculine
3. [v] Ýenclose with a dike; "dike the land to protect it from water"

HyperDictionary.com (Using the 1913 version by Webster.)

So, if one stops at the first few entries of a google search, the mainstream definition is reinforced.

Yet, The Collins English Dictionary presents a more neutral version: 9 descriptions of engineering uses, and one synonym for lesbian.

The beginning of an essay on theories of dyke art explains that no one has yet defined the term "dyke" from a lesbian perspective:

"Dykes seem to be everywhere in queer culture, yet nowhere at all.Ý There are "unmistakable dykes," "real dykes," "sports dykes," "old dykes," "femme-dykes," "dyketionaries," "Dykes to Watch Out For," "diesel dykes," "dyke punk rock," "dyke poetry," "dyke cafes," "dyke bars," "Technicolor dykes" and yes, even "dyke art."Ý Yet no one is offering any solid definitions.Ý Dykes are discussed, stories of dykes are told, pictures of dykes are taken, drawn and painted. Yet dykes are still not defined.Ý (Perhaps this is to our advantage.)
ÝÝÝ Does this mean dykes and dyke artists are beyond definition?Ý Or does it mean that dykes are purposely avoiding definition?Ý Is identifying as a dyke a way of building a community and culture with other women who might otherwise be divided by differences in class, race, age, cultural heritage and so on?Ý Are dykes resisting the marginalization they might feel because they are not perceived as being "mainstream" enough, even within lesbian communities (for example, they might be activists, outspoken, working class, "alternative," or not-white)?Ý These questions all lead to possible answers, but as of yet no one wants to or is willing to come up with some theories.Ý I do not believe that it is an accident or a simple oversight that dykes are not defined. "

In support of my assertion that being a dyke is about being political, I found a review by Lori Hughes of a book described as an "autobiographical philosophy". Dyke Ideas offers this definition:

"'dyke' as a label...emphasize[s] its implication of resistance instead of the label 'lesbian' that carries a sexual definition in many peopleís minds. To [author Trebilcot], 'dyke' means 'having radical lesbian feminist ideals, including: being alert to and active against oppressions; taking every womon seriously, especially by attending to what each womon has to say; and empowering wimmin in contexts that wimmin create'.... Dykism 'is not a matter of sex but rather rejecting and separating from patriarchy and joining in solidarity with wimmin.'"

The reviewer notes that Trebilcot has a strong separatist streak - that is a bias with which I fervently disagree. One does not have to hold any antipathy towards men in order to be a dyke.

Another review of Trebilcot's book (maybe I ought to read it!) explains:

"Adopting the time-honored feminist maxim 'the personal is political,' Trebilcot self-consciously identifies as both oppressor (e.g., caucasian, "middle-class, thin") and oppressed (viz., "female, old, and 'homosexual'") to recognize and understand how her background and past experiences influence her ideas and behavior. Full understanding must acknowledge that ideas evolve from psychological, logical, and political origins. In Dyke Ideas, Trebilcot abandons a rigorous academic style of writing in order that her work be accessible to a broader readership of wimmin. This volume comprises a number of excellent essays, several poems, one provocative dialogue, and several pieces which do not adhere to any particular category. "

There does seem to be a bias leaning towards a more masculine appearance but I would insist that this is an incursion of dominant culture's gender labels, not a necessary constitutive characteristic of a dyke. I'd suggest that the political/resisance dimensions of being a dyke are taken directly from the functional engineering purposes of physical dykes.

The following is quoted from a recent email by Tom Atlee:

"I have not spoken out on this list for any candidate for President of the U.S., believing that the dynamics of presidential elections feed expectations that a white knight will ride to the rescue. I believe these expectations are -- unfortunately, and to a great extent -- an illusion. The overwhelming evidence, it seems to me, is that the system is set up to ultimately prevent transformational politicians from having the effects they and their followers dream of -- even if they were elected.

I may well be wrong, but I like to think that a system-change focus would ultimately take us further than a regime-change focus. If you're wondering what I mean by that, see What Could We Do to Take Back Our Democracy? and Using Citizen Deliberative Councils to Make Democracy More Potent and Awake, which describe the innovations I see as most critical. [You can also] explore over a hundred approaches to a wiser democracy.

That said, however, I realize that systemic change does not offer the compelling drama provided by the archetypal heroic battles of election campaigns. The political battle will predominate, I have no doubt, and its outcomes will have significant consequences (although not always what the partisans think in the polarized intensity of the battle, where there is precious little time for serious reflection on the larger picture and the likely consequences of this or that outcome).

So, rather than arguing for or against electoral work or particular candidates, I have continued to promote co-intelligence and wise democratic innovations. Someday, I believe, these possibilities will ripen into grassroots activities and political campaigns that focus more on empowering our collective wisdom than on pushing partisan positions and heroic candidates."

Laurene informs me that under no circumstances does she want to become the next president of Gallaudet. I accept her choice. It makes sense - she spent a decade (or more?) jumping through adminstrative hoops in order to get to where she is now, why should she give it up after only a few years?

Perhaps another opportunity will come around in several years and she will feel - then - that it is the right thing to do. Maybe not. I think someone who has worked so hard and tirelessly for so many years ought to be able to do what she wants - finally! - for as long as she wants to do it.

Go Laurene! :-)

Isabelle (7 lbs, 4 oz) and James (6 ob 4 oz) were ushered into the world at 4:00 and 4:02 am this morning. [the FP] was witness and welcomer to the grand event. (Midwifery could have been an alternative career.) Hannah has been calling from her father's so she could know exactly when her self-appointed "cousin-dom" and "main babysitter" roles officially begin. Done!

I heard:

"Snoring is not a sin."

I misheard:

"They belong to Danny." (Actually referred to a pair of flip-flops.)

Conservative George Will suggests that if the Democrats DON'T nominate Dean then he will run as an independent, thus fracturing the opposition to Bush much as Nader did in 2000. The Dueling Nightmares. I'm always suspicious of his motives - he was one of those gloating in the summer about a Dean candidacy as a surefire bet for Bush to be re-elected. Although Will is still characterizing Dean as "a fire-breathing liberal" - in truth he is as centrist as they come.

As I posted the previous link it occurred to me that our discussion in class last night might have been the microsocial acting out of the larger public debate now underway about gay marriage ñ its really about the difference between tolerance and acceptance, isnít it? Iíve tried to remember HOW we even got into itÖQianqing presented my paperÖthere were questions about the time dimension of a problematic moment, and how PMs are ìpostmodern.î Then Stephen asked me if the PMs were really completely unpredictable, if they truly never give any indication or warning.

I shared a story about the PM workshop James, Vangie and I did in Boston last summer. We showed the workshop participants a video of a real PM that had to do with homophobia. Then we had the participants re-enact the moment and debrief it as if it had happened with/to them. I had been assigned the role of monitoring or watching for homophobia in the groupís discussion. Because of my previous experience with group relations (understanding how groups ìuseî individuals to fulfill certain functions), I felt the only way I could accomplish the task was to set aside my usual defenses and means for coping with homophobia, basically opening myself up to the currents, subtleties, and nuances of homophobia that I typically disregard.

In so doing, I in fact was emotionally drawn in and reacted to the latent homophobia, which in turn did ìproduceî or ìelicitî a PM. I was not acting in any false way; I applied a certain set of skills that contributed to the conditions of possibility for a PM to occur.

At this point ñ I canít recall anything else in-between? ñ Donna said when she first met me she never considered that I might be a lesbian. I said that was offensive to me and the ìbattleî was engaged. Scott really nailed the point of the debate when he said that I was offering a critique of tolerance and Donna continued to respond on the basis of ìbeing raisedî to be tolerant.î George also suggested that ìtraditionî in general (which Donna invoked as the basis for her behavior) almost universally included homophobic tendencies.

I was aware, as this all unfolded, of how triggered I was ñ somehow, my ìguardî was down. Maybe it was ìdownî because of recalling the situation last summer in which I had intentionally dropped it (by recalling it in memory did I return to that state?)Öbut I didnít do it purposively last night ñ I was caught off guard by my own intensity. Why was the valence so high? Why did my personal being/identity as a lesbian even come up? I referred to it in an example because it was the only way I could answer Stephenís question, but somehow it turned into a lightening rod (in effect?) for a tense debate. And, Iëd suggest (today, having made the connection with the larger context, what Iíd call the macrosocial level ñ legal decision, media coverage/debate, political maneuvering) that many in the group had a high valence for engaging the issue also. Iím not sure of thisÖmost folks didnít participate in the actual debateÖbut I will say that my experience of the discussion that ensued was incredibly positive. I felt I had allies who responded concretely and tangibly ñ that gives me great hope.

This is the kind of hope that I think Stephen sought when he asked his questions about comparability - what happens when two claims are essentially opposed yet equally valid, and solidarity - how can we maintain cohesion in the face of such intense disagreements? I respect Donna for hanging in with me and us during the debate and laying out her reasoning as plainly as she could. The incompatability of our views doesnít preclude, in my mind, a ìsolutionî that satisfies us both, nor does it REQUIRE such a solution in order to be resolved. Sheís doing her work, Iím doing mine. Our respective ìworkî (on intra- and interpersonal levels) abuts, contradicts, and complements each otherís. This is good.

What is more exciting to me as an outcome is making the hypothetical link of metonymy. To what extent did our microsocial interaction play out the dynamics of the larger public debate so salient right now? The event suggests to me that Iíve been more sensitive to the ramifications of the gay marriage decision (and this battle in the ìculture warsî) than I was aware of (which opened me to the valence of Öwhat shall we sayÖîchampioningî (?) gay rightsÖ.and perhaps it was/has been reverberating within otherís peoples ìunconsciousî as well? How else could it have emerged in our group with such force? Finally, is it only coincidental that the illustration I gave of the difference between ìtoleranceî and ìacceptanceî had to do with the topic of family - a (possible) metonym of marriage? :-)

A USA today internet poll shows the YES vote (agree with the decision) ahead today 69% to 30% (.55% undecided). A story about the Massachusetts Supreme Court Decision is linked to the poll. (Does it influence voters if they read it first?)

Tom's tone is too idealistic, but still, Some Thoughts on Wisdom provides a useful summary.

I acquired a pair of sexy black panties. Not mine!

An omission - being "disciplined" as a member of the collective ("Resistance is Futile") was a challenge because of the introvert factor. How do introverts survive in more group-based societies? The social rules must accommodate various forms or degrees of "less" participation in order to prevent too much grumpiness, let alone outright anti-social behavior.

And - those of us who didn't attend 4-5 workshops a day were only making up for Leda, who presented somwhere in the range of 7-9 times, sometimes simultaneously! Someone slow that woman down....

Who logged the most sun time at Miami Beach? I can only claim 6-8 hours - believe it or not. I lost many hours of daylight recovering from the cultural event at the Twist in South Beach. SOME people can really dance! ;-) btw ñ Newsweek dissed SB in favor of the Design District (November 24, 2003 Tip Sheet). Our local informants on la vida loca either misinformed our intrepid pair of scouts or our scouts were hoodwinked, plain and simple.

Messages sent from the beach back to good friends in lovely Amherst elicited a love/hate discourse and threats of physical violence. Friends in Indianapolis were elated at the transgressive behavior of not attending the larger part of the conference. (But hey ñ we were Very Responsible. All of us presented on cue and attended at least one additional academic event (and most of us more than that).

I was inducted into the benefits and hazards of collective decision-making (and disciplined accordingly when I attempted to make independent, individual decisions ñ luckily Iím a quick study). Except for a few minor glitches in the hotel (we never got any messages, for instance), some tandem snoring, and a bit of stress returning the rental car things could not have been better. We had SUCH a good time together that instead of driving home from the airport at 11 pm last night we drove SOUTH to Hartford for ìreal Chinese food." Iíve now had tripe (and survived to tell the tale), and was serenaded with Chinese popular and folk tunes (interspersed with a few American movie classics) all the way back to Northampton. Provide folks with good food and you donít know WHAT might happen!

I think all of us agreed that the Cuban food from Little Havana was the best meal of the trip (besides that Chinese food in Hartford, which was technically ìafterî we returned). Unfortunately, age caught up with this party animal, who simply could not hang for a second night of letting it all out at the Twist. Alas!

Finally, let me take this opportunity to correct a rumor I started a few weeks ago. Someone has not finished ìthe paperî for somebody. Someone only completed the article critique.

I think (now, in retrospect, as I keep learning, smile) that Li and I presented a more-or-less Foucauldian genealogical analysis of the mentoring project (on Nov 2). For instance, Foucaultís project was to question positivist science that focused on linear, causal events ìby suggesting that institutions and the discourses surrounding them often emerge out of a series of accidents and arbitrary or superficial localized eventsî (Knights, 1992:517).

We showed the discourse as it unfolded, selecting ìevidenceî in order to render a problem intelligibleî (519) Ö.and ìremov[ing] all [well, most] trace of the human subjectÖ[because] social practices and their discursive formations are independent of those who speak for them (Foucault, 1973, 1979a). By this, Foucault did not mean to imply that the intentions of subjects are nonexistent but merely that their outcomes in aggregated sets of social practices are wholly independent of what was intended (see Dreyfuss & Rabinow, 1982)î (emphasis added; Knights, 517).

Taking Foucaultís three major periods (archeological, genealogical, and ethical), I may have been coming from more of an emphasis on the third (ìthe way people constitute themselves as ethical subjects or moral agentsî) while Li was coming more from the second (concerning ìthe subjects of power acting on othersî) (518). Li will of course have his own view on this. :-) For instance, what we did that is different than positivist approaches to social interaction was to problematize the power-knowledge relations among international and domestic students and also between faculty and students (519), generating an analysis that was (intended to be) disruptive and dislocating. Yet the ìtrouble-makingî (515) (aspect of our presentation was not intended to establish a ìnew truthî about mentoring and/or mentorship practices in the department, as much as it hoped to introduce doubt, instability, and uncertainty such that each of us (as subjectivities) might be able to recognize and resist invested (?) forms of power.

Knights, David (1992). Changing Spaces: The disruptive impact of a new epistemological location for the study of management. Academy of Management Review 3:17, 514-536.

"Romanians ñ Best Linguists in Europe; English ñ Their 2nd Language in Future

Romanians are best foreign language speakers in Europe, according to The Eastern European Translators Association. According to a study made by this organization 60% of the Romanians speak a foreign language, usually English.

Some 25% of them speak 2 foreign languages (usually English and French), while 4% of them speak more than 2 foreign languages.

Despite their considerably higher living standard, other Europeans are way behind Romanians, as far as foreign languages go. Only 40% of the Germans, 35% of the French and 25% of the English bothered to learn a foreign language.

The study indicates that English will become the Romaniansí 2nd native language in future.

As for the other E.U. candidate countries, Hungary ranks 2nd after Romania with 45% of the population speaking a foreign language."

(by Gardianul)

Remains of Dean's brother possibly found in Laos (CNN):

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon said Tuesday that human remains have been found in Southeast Asia in a case involving the long-missing brother of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

The remains were recovered last week during an excavation in the Bolikhamxai Province of central Laos. They have not been identified.

The candidate's younger brother, Charles Dean, and Australian Neil Sharman were killed in Laos in September 1974, according to a statement from the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command.

The two were civilians and not associated with Vietnam War-era combat operations going on in the region at the time, the statement said. The remains were to be identified at a lab in Hawaii.

"The personal effects found at the site make us reasonably confident that we have finally located Charlie's remains," Howard Dean said in a written statement Tuesday.

In an article on the Sharman family's reaction to the recovery, Australia's Herald Sun newspaper quoted Sharman's brother Ian as saying the two men had been handcuffed and executed and their bodies thrown into a bomb crater.

The newspaper said the men had been arrested as suspected spies as they traveled along the Mekong River in Laos.

Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, visited Laos in February 2002 during an investigation that led to the excavation.

In his statement Tuesday, Dean said, "We greet this news with mixed emotions but are gratified that we may now be approaching closure to this painful episode in our lives. We ask that you respect our privacy as we arrange for the transfer, identification and ultimate burial of what we believe are Charlie Dean's remains."

There are 1,875 Americans missing or unaccounted for from the Vietnam War, according to the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command."

THIS seems like who I want to be: "the critic needs an enormous amount of 'Negative Capability': the ability to exist 'in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason' (Dewey, 1934, p.33)" (121).

"...the intent of a critical servant [is] no less subject to critique than the actions/he proposed.......the critical rhetor takes on a more specific role than the 'social actor' proposed by McKerrow (1991, p. 62). Servitude as douleia is a giving over of one's will to fulfill the important function of addressing the needs of the community.....The agency of the critical servant is obtained by understanding the agent's subjectivity as a combination of the individual and the social......When critic and servant are combined in constant interplay, the rhetor is a moral and political agent who sacrifices his or her self-interest to the community, and through this loss gains knowledge and power.....The critic interprets the history of a community, showing how past choices led to the present conditions...Future actions are ones the community could have chosen in the past but did not....the critical interpretation...thus remakes the past with an eye toward a brighter future....This new constitution is powerful because it is grounded in a subjectivity that is actively both individual and social. In this critical service lies the possibility for ongoing transformation....

"The critical servant perspective pushes critical rhetoric to take 'as one of its tasks an investigation of what the good is or might be' (Charland, 1991, p. 73).....it draws on and articulates the experience of the audience even as it moves them toward a new position....maintains its legitimacy by remaining open to further challenges (Wellman, 1971) by its critical servants....helps rhetors manage the paradox of proposing a course of action in an ever-changing world" (118).

"The servant is duty-bound to strive for the best for the community....can...play the 'ethic card' without denying its role as an ethic. Ethical appeals can win an election and reorient the audience toward an ethical position entailed in the community's history but not yet fully realized in everyday practice. Is it this position that the critical servants offers as the best possible goal......Critical servants situate their knowledge of possible actions within the history of the community...knowledge...is always temporally relative, always situationally contingent, and always subject to further critique and revision....knowledge must be tied to a historical moment.....In the past lies transformative potential for the present community, potential that can be used in radical ways....By initiating a transactional interaction between past and present, the critic calls into question the good endorsed in the present as much as the good of the past. The critic offers a judgment on the past and, as such, draws on the history of the community for good" (118-119).

"As we look to notions of the good that a critical servant may articulate, it is important not to confuse community history with community standards. All communities have a history of practices that can lead to new practices. In every act there is some unanticipated opening that the actor did not intend. Rhetors have the freedom to take up a past practice, explore its potential, and discover its previously unexplored use. THus history can be seen as the resource of a potential that has yet to be actualized. Critical servants can transform local knowledge by drawing on the history of the community and the history of discursive practices that produced that knowledge. By looking to the past, critiquing it, refocusing and reorieting it, the critical servant can produce critical interventions and suggest courses of action with positive transformative potential" (119).

All quotes from Norman Clark (hope the link is to the right one?!), "The Critical Servant: An Isocratean Contribution to Critical Rhetoric." QJS, Vol 82, No 2, May 1996.

Tried to add categories to some of the older entries - those that we ported in from my old weblog. They don't seem to be sticking. :-( I'm bumming!

My good friend Laurene Gallimore is a potential candidate to become the next President of Gallaudet University. A grassroots campaign is already underway, as demonstrated by THE TACTILE MIND WEEKLY, whose October 2003 issue (Vol 24, No 3) asked: "Who Should Be the Next President of Gallaudet?"

Some excerpts: ìÖthe next president must be a fluent signer. Someone who signs like a Scarecrow or a Tin Man will not do. We demand someone who can sign like... Laurene Gallimore. Actually, Laurene Gallimore wins my vote. She's Deaf. She signs with enough power to light all the kitchens in America. She is a graduate of that famous boot camp for leaders in our community, Youth Leadership Camp. And she is a special kind of teacher: she teaches teachers. If anyone knows the business of higher education as it relates to ALL education, it is sheÖ. We need someone to mean to Gallaudet what Beethoven means to music, Milton to poetry, Shakespeare to literature, and what Laurene Gallimore already means to the education of deaf children. (John Lee Clark)

ìI would probably put the most energy into campaigning for Laurene GallimoreÖShe has a heart of gold, a sharp mind, and nerves of steel. She is a powerful speaker without being offensive. Over the years, her work with youth has shown volumes of information about her abilities. She opens her arms and welcomes people, giving them a chance before judging them. She is willing to listen to all sides of every story before she makes a decision. And seems willing to allow that decision to be swayed should a compelling argument come up. Laurene is, simply put, the most amazing woman I have ever met. On stage, she is dynamic, convincing, and can move you to tears. Around her, there is an aura of confidence and knowledge. In person, she is humble and honest. She is approachable.
ìMy fondest memory of Laurene is watching her presentation at Deaf Way II. I sat through the whole thing with tears shimmering in my eyes.
Thinking, this is a woman I would love to be. I left the presentation
feeling full of positive energy and certain of possibilities even though
the topic she discussed was a solemn one. She was able to take one of
the most hopelessly draining topics and leave us feeling as though there
were things we COULD do to better the future of our Deaf children.
ìAnd then I met her in person. I felt so stupid approaching her, so wary. This, a woman whose reputation is known all over the world. What could I say? All I could think of was to tell her how inspiring she was. I told her that I was struck by her courage and determination on stage in the face of so many people who are not willing to acknowledge the oppressive nature of hearing people--to the point where they will trample those who speak up. Laurene was wonderful. She first blushed and then went on to admit she was terrified standing up there on stage that day. Immediately, I felt comfortable with her. One of us. Someone we could look to as a role model, and feel as though we could someday become like her.
ìShe's Nobel Prize material. Go Laurene!î (Alison Aubrecht)

ìFor the next president of Gallaudet University, I say that Dr. Laurene
Gallimore has proven herself a surefire choice, having accomplished so
much in the last few decades. I realize my choice of words, "few
decades" might make her out to be old, but she is not. It's her soul
that is old and wise.
ìDr. Laurene Gallimore is one of the trailblazers in promoting the
Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy in the Education of the Deaf. She is an
eloquent presenter, having signed before countless of respected
educators and politicians alike. To be an eloquent speaker, one must
have the heart of a lion and wisdom that reflects the experience of
millions.
ìHeavily recruited by Gallaudet University, she was recently appointed the Director of the Deaf Education, Graduate Program. Before then, she was the Coordinator and Professor of the Deaf Education program at the Western Oregon University. While she has her plate full, she also serves as an advisor to the Black Deaf Student Union and sits on the Board of District of Columbia Area Black Deaf Advocates. She is a tireless civil rights advocate, continuously educating in America and overseas.
ìTo be a President of a University, one must possess the following
qualities: ability to connect with the masses, ability to understand the
intricacies of politics, and understand the power of education and the
importance of investment in students for the future comings of
successful alumni.
ìDr. Laurene Gallimore has surpassed the listed qualities by far.
ìDr. Laurene Gallimore for President of Gallaudet University!î (Ryan K. Commerson)

My all-time favorite and deepest inspiration, Audre Lorde, also known as Gamba Adisa, meaning "Warrior: She Who Makes Her Meaning Clear".

"There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all."

Michel Foucault, The Use of Pleasure.

"But every place she went
they pushed her to the other side
and that other side pushed her to the other side
of the other side of the other side. . . .
Pushed to the edge of the world
there she made her home on the edge. . . .
Always pushed toward the other side
In all lands alien, nowhere citizen." (Anzaldua, 1994, p. 3)

Both quotes in "Postcolonial Interventions in the Rhetorical Canon: An "Other" View" by Raka Shome. In Contemporary Rhetorical Theory, 1999.

Some quotes that illuminate last night's (wee hours of this morning, actually) existential crisis:

"...failures to bridge the gap between a lived practice and a noncorresponding ideology...the contradiction is between a a moral sense of 'what should be done' and 'what is being done' (p. 280). The contradiction is mediated, both in the life of the individual and within the public realm, by recourse to suitable myths that gloss the incompatibilities, and thereby provide a rationalization for action. The task of a critical rhetoric is to call attention to the myth, and the manner in which it mediates between contradictory impulses to action" (McKerrow, Critical Rhetoric, in CRT, 1999, pp. 456-7, cites Abravanel (1983).

"...a specific intellectual is 'one whose radical work of transformation, whose fight against repression is carried on at the specific institutional site where [she] finds [herself] and on the terms of [her] own expertise, on the terms inherent to [her] functioning as an intellectual'" (McKerrow, Critical Rhetoric, in CRT, 1999, p. 458, cites Lentricchia's (1983, pp. 6-7) statement of Foucault's notion of a specific intellectual.)

Here's a textbook example of the media framing technique of bipolarity (an example that I'm gonna use in my winter course, Media Broadcasting and Institutions, also known as Media Criticism...
From TIME Magazine, "The Insurgent and the Soldier (Tale of Two Warriors)"

Someone told me yesterday that they were somewhat surprised by the open-ended presentation and discussion at the session we did on Nov 2 because they were expecting some kind of conclusion or answer...really, there is no "answer" per se, but still (hopefully) a new thread of consciousness or awareness that the usual way of doing things can (has, and often still does) lead to a perception of indifference to any discourse (or person?) which isn't US-centric.

I've really been enjoying the spaces that have opened up, especially in the rhetoric class but also in private conversations, and the timing of having several CSC talks on topics other than the US has been fortuitous. :-)

My own key finding from the whole mentoring process is how intolerant many Americans are to spending time engaged in discussion about other countries - especially during classes. As someone else told me yesterday, this isn't news for international students, but what a great outcome for the project itself.

The personal learning I've taken away is the ability to actually notice when this happens...when the discursive space to discuss how theory might apply to different cultural examples is closed down and shifted back to an American context. I am starting to watch for the actual moves made that shift the discourse back to the US at the center...its informal of course.

Now, the tricky part (seems to me) to revolve around two issues - opening up these discussions and spaces in ways that aren't about guilt (but there is a stage of consciousness-raising when sensitivities are heightened in uncomfortable ways - as far as I know the only way through this is to endure it; it will pass)

And also creating the space without expectation that international students MUST leap to fill it. I've got a bit of a question going on in my mind about forcing conformity to the US educational mode - open discussion among students and faculty, questions and answers as a normalized part of the discourse. It seems to me that sensivity to the adjustment process is both necessary and yet also sortof insidiously serves to reinforce the status quo. Simplistically - if participation isn't the way school is done in India, or China, or Korea (for instance, obviously I'm at risk of revealing my ignorance!), then we can't expect participation, and if we don't expect participation then, self-fulfilling prophecy! No (or little) participation.

So I've got some sort of half-formed question in my mind about the balance between support of various cultural ways of being and "forced" acculturation. How desirable is it for international students to move concerns of Canada, Romania, China, Japan, Korea, India to the center of classroom discourse? It seems a discussion of pros and cons might be something worth engaging.

Briankle wowed us with another surrealist chalkboard work of art last night. Will post a photo once I get 'em developed, scanned, and uploaded. (At the outer reaches of my technology learning curve.)

Taste-tested pumpkin beer later (practically tasteless) while Raz sucked down a Dark and Stormy and Sarbjeet nursed cinnamon tea. I'll be sticking with Massatucky Brown.

The trackback didn't catch it, but David in his web-surfing did. We've been noted on an internet technologies blog!

Internet Research 4.0.

I'm working on a paper for the "paradigms" course (SOM) where I have to look at the labor-managment dispute at Yale from Burrell and Morgan's 4 paradigms AND poststructuralism.

Here's a possible reference: The Next Upsurge. Dan Clawson is a sociology prof at UMass.

Scott goes down in history for this example, but he's in competition with Raz for the best joke in rhetoric last night. Iris "shot" Dan with her hands as guns and Raz blew away the smoke.

Maybe you had to be there? :-)

Class went a half-hour over again (I think everyone who stayed WANTED to, some folks trickled out after official time was up, including me eventually) but wouldn't you know we started talking about Romania right at the buzzer? Iris was rockin'.

It happened. Last night. I turned away from the sink and caught a sideways glance and there they were. Wrinkles around my eyes. :-)

People have consistently taken me for several years younger than I really am. Not any more!

Danny, Srinivas, and Qianqing were there for the celebration - a beer in the Blue Wall. Ooooo baby!

I received a request for "any initial "findings" or generalizable beliefs or
feelings that could be briefly summarized to those of us who have not been
involved?" Yes - we did have a handout at the Nov 2 "culminatory" event. I will leave a stack in the mailroom on Monday for anyone to pick up. It's not the complete presentation, but shows the overall themes we gleaned from each session and how we put them together, plus some hypotheses about what might have been "going on".

What's not included is how I applied the group relations concept of parallel process to illustrate how my own interpersonal journey with Li seemed to be being replicated at the intergroup level between domestic and international students. The performance aspects (the skits) were intended to be a lampoon of the dynamics we'd observed.

As I'm wont to do, in reading for Rhetoric this week I'm struck by my own subject nature. The presentation we made took form (not exclusively, but to a significant degree) in a context of tragedy vs comedy. Rhetorically, it was intended to be aesthetic...and also merely a snapshot of a process in action. I think of it as an event of convergence among discourses. If we'd been crafting the performance/presentation this week, I'd have been thinking more eristically - " as an imaginative art, driven by strife and discord and characterized by play (as in playing a game), whose object or telos is the momentary securing of a perspective, that is, a transient realization of a point of view or attitude, typically expressed via the modality of the sublime" (italics in original, James W. Hikens, The Forum: Ietzche, Eristic, and the Rhetoric of the Possible" QJS 1995:357).

While in some respects I think we incorporated some of these aspects, my assessment is that we did not accomplish the serving up of "a menu of alternatives" nor did we cultivate "predispositions for choice". Eristic's "goal is not to convince auditors of particular status quo truths, but to persuade them of the availability of other options" (italics in original, Hikens, 358).

I have no doubt that there are folks - maybe many, maybe a few - who are still reflecting on the mentoring project. I've received some challenges and questions about our hypotheses, use and interpretation of data (which I will get to posting about eventually). I was just reacting to (what I know now!) is the audience-dependent aspect of social knowledge formation (Farrell, Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory in Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader, 1999:145). In this capacity, "social knowledge becomes the emergent property of a collectivity" (146), and is necessarily only "probably knowledge. It is knowledge in a state of potential or indeterminance" (147). Additionally, "social knowledge is transitional and generative. As individual problems are encountered and, through the frustrating incermentalism of human decision-making, managed or resolved, new problems emerge; and with these, new knowledge may be attributed, based reasonably upon collective judgments which have previously been made" (147). Hence, "any sophisticated social system will be confronted, throughout its existence, by serious problems which require careful deliberation and concerted action....The overarching function of social knowledge is to transform the society [of loosely connected individuals] into a community" (148). Finally, "social knowledge is thus the assumption of a wider consciousness. And the corollary of such an assumption, commitment, should extend as far as consciousness itself. Both John Dewey and - more recently - his student, Richard McKeon, have defined the great community as a consequence of acting as the members of such a community" (150).

As another student commented to me about that same post (reflection and action), language - talking - is action! Hence, my fear (yes, I'll own it!) that the "silence" I experienced (not just in the blog mind you, but in my face-to-face experiences at school during "the week after" - smile) indicated a potential failure in Li's and my attempt to "intervene" in the "organization."

Most of my efforts now are directed towards securing my own learning and trying to synthesize it in such a way that I tie together the various threads informing my own personal growth and professional education. I benefit from doing this with others, reflecting out loud, I guess you might call it. However, I don't want anyone to feel there is some kind of pressure or obligation to respond anew or continue to engage past the point of your own interest. If it is of mutual benefit, that's awesome. :-)

So, to launch into my last "chapter" (for today!), an article by Robert Chia that I've read for the SOM "paradigms" course discusses postmodern organizational theory as attempts at "world-making." At base, he states that postmodern theory "is not so much a call for the celebration of diversity and plurality, but a call for the return to a regrounding of theory on the primacy of lived experience" (Organization Theory as Postmodern Science" in Tsoukas & Knudsen (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, 2003:124). He continues: "the postmodern...may be most productively invoked as an alternative style of thought - a new way of thinking - which attempts to more adequately comprehend and deconstruct the almost-inexorable complexification of science and modern society with all its attendant social and societal ramifications" (italics in original, 125).

Warning: long quote forthcoming!

"First, in place of the modernist emphasis on the ontological primacy of substance, stability, identity, order, regularity, and form, postmodern analyses seek to emphasize the Heraclitean primacy accorded to process, indeterminacy, flux, interpenetration, formlessness, and incessant change. The Heraclitean emphasis is evident in Jacques Derrida's (1981) differance, in MIchel Serres's (1981) notion of homeorrhesis, in Deleuze's (1993; Deleuze and Guattari 1988) notions of the nomadic, the labyrinth, the fold, and the rhizome. Notwithstanding their vastly different styles and approaches, these writers return again and again to the problem of trying to convey the sense of fluidity, movement, flux, and change immanent in reality. Such a processual orientation must not be equated wit the commonsensical idea of the process that a system is deemed to undergo in transition. Rather, it is a metaphysical orientation that emphasizes an ontological primacy in the becoming of things; that sees things as always already momentary outcomes or effects of historical processes. As Tim Ingold, paraphrasing Ortega y Gasset, puts it well: 'We are not things but dramas; we have no nature, only history; we are not, though we live' (INgold 1986:117, emphasis original). Such a becoming orientation rejects what Rescher (1996) calls the process reducibility thesis whereby processes are often assumed to be processes of primary 'things'. Instead, it insists that 'things', social entities, generative mechanisms etc., are no more than 'stability waves in a sea of process' (Rescher 1996:53). The process ontology promotes a decentred and dispersive view of reality as a heterogeneous concatenation of atomic event-occurrences that cannot be adequately captured by static symbols and representations. For process ontology the basic unit of reality is not an atom or a thing but an 'event-cluster' forming a relatively stable pattern of relations. Correspondingly, postmodern science, which is based upon this processual mode of thought, eschews atomistic thinking in favour of a flowing undifferentiated wholeness in which the ultimate unit of reality is not an atom but 'pulses of energy bound together by a thread of "memory"' (Gunter 1993:137)...

....Postmodernism's revelation of the inherent inadequacies of language points us to a realm of knowing beyond the grasp of representationalist epistemology...for [Lyotard], postmodern analysis is that which 'in the modern, invokes the unpresentable in presentation itself...that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable' (Lyotadr 1992:15). For Lyotard and other postmodern writers, the real purpose of concepts and representations is not so much to discover a better set of representations that will enable us to mirror the going-ons in the world. Rather, it is to point us to an unconscious realm of knowing which lies beyond words but which, nevertheless, has a performative impact upon our lives."

(Chia, 128-135).

Using Citizen Deliberative Councils to Make Democracy More Potent and Awake

by Tom Atlee
November 2003

Board denies support to rfb.

Yesterday, David and I were debriefing about the mentoring event on Sunday. Long and short of it, he felt that the show and presentation invited action, not reflection. Very interesting! I think he's right - and I'm not sure that's what Li and I intended. Let me qualify, from my point-of-view: I do want and hope that folks will take some kinds of action, but the desired mode of that "action" is primarily reflection. In concrete terms, that means (for me) continuing to think about communication practices that may lead or contribute to a perception of indifference, sharing my thoughts and feelings about this with others, and paying close attention to what others have to say about their own thoughts and feelings regarding this question, as well as the other "take aways" from Sunday's session.

For instance, it seems some faculty think the main point of the presentation was to criticize them. Certainly, there was some critique directed towards faculty practices about which many graduate students have expressed dissatisfaction. But it seems to me that those specific criticisms are examples of the larger phenomenon of perceived American indifference to international students, and much of THAT critique was directed towards American students.

Anyway, the thing that has really stuck with me the most is something David said about the presentation's clarity...there wasn't one specific statement that summed it up, but what it made me wonder about is the effectiveness of the rhetoric - by which I mean the attempt to be persuasive about our analysis of the data. Is it possible to be too persuasive? If the actual effect of the presentation has been to shut conversation down because it seems as if the conclusion has already been made, that would be an effect counter to what I (and I think Li) intended...and it would bum me out! :-(

The other thing that has been on my mind has something to do with variations in research aims, modes, methods...I deliberately chose NOT to take a class or write a specific paper on this project because I didn't want to think in the typical research way. Does anyone know what I mean by that? Li and I are making a movie - one that we would will be provocative and stimulate enough talk among viewers that actual practices of interaction between and among international and domestic changes...even (Dreaming Big!) that institutional practices that might promote or enhance cross-cultural interactions might be improved. So, this aim is different than a research goal of producing knowledge, per se.

A corollary of this kind of action research (which is the closest frame I'm aware of) has to do with the nature of groups, group processes, and the focus or desire on acting in (so-called) real time. The kind of deliberative, deep thinking that characterizes the presentation of research intended to stand the test of time is not possible in the same way. Literally, Li and I generated the entire script and presentation in six days. Sunday was an "in-process" snapshot of our best "making-sense" of the data. In that regard, I want to emphasize the HYPOTHETICAL nature of the hypotheses! They are certainly up for debate - I think I had envisioned a contemplative mood (including healthy doses of self-reflection, smile) for this next phase within the department...occurring in essentially spontaneous snatches of conversation here and there. (Perhaps this is happening and I'm unaware.) Obviously, my projected fantasy (!) about what might ripple out from the presentation doesn't need to have any relation to the reality - its just my own subjective point-of-reference. :-)

I'll try to go to some of these - now that I have part of my life back! :-)

Umass Korean Film Festival .

"When the dawn comes, the night will be a memory too, and a new day has begun!"

We have yet to see about the "new day," but by most accounts the combo presentation/play Li and I provided Sunday about the mentoring project was a success. :-)

Several folks asked about next steps. We have no further plans for group process within the department, although we encourage any and everyone who wants to do some kind of "follow-up" to do just that. Of course, I am wondering...will anything change? Will we just go back (more accurately, maintiain) things the way they were/are?

We probably won't look at the tapes of the concluding small group sessions until January. Did anyone actually talk about indifference? It seems to me that, if everything is boiled down to the most basic "point" of what we learned in this project, it is that many international students experience the cumulative effect of domestic behavior, communication, etc., as indifference. I'm slowly becoming more able myself to notice when, how, where, etc., this can occur. I don't know if anyone is interested in using my weblog as a place to continue discussion, but I will continue to keep talking and thinking about it here.

For instance, last night in the rhetoric class Stephen overtly created a space for the Chinese and Romanian members of the class to have some time at/in "the center of the discourse." We were able to manage a little more than five minutes (maybe even 10!) trying to sort out places in Chinese politics where the discourse of candidates for elective office might be open to scrutiny. Of course, there is a huge learning curve for most of the U.S. students - who's knowledge base is sketchy at best and completely misinformed by stereotype at worst (and I'm sure witnessing this is not exactly fun). But it was fascinating to see some parallels emerge between Chinese and US national politics, and consider whether Hariman's four styles of political style could be applicable to the Chinese system or not.

I can't recall how the transition occurred back to US national politics...but it did, so the Romanian system didn't get explored, and what we could have learned from a three-way comparison also was lost. Does that mean we were somehow "bad?" No, I don't think so. But we did revert to US cultural models rather quickly. I wonder, is this the kind of discursive activity that lends itself to the perception of indifference? In rough quantitative terms, we spent 95% of our discourse on American cultural examples.

I don't bring the example up to bash it! Indeed, that 5% is a significant attempt and arguably a larger "space" than seems to typically occur. Is it helpful to note these instances? Has anyone else noticed a difference, or any other "effects" of Sunday's session?

btw, I didn't feel I did a very good job of thanking everyone who came. You know it would have been meaningless without you; I am very appreciative. I also invite anyone who wasn't able to attend to dive right on into our discussion here or in any other ways that it makes sense to you. (If you're shy about posting publicly, you can email me and I'll post for you...both ways have already occurred in the comments over the past couple of weeks.)