I heard:
"Snoring is not a sin."
I misheard:
"They belong to Danny." (Actually referred to a pair of flip-flops.)
group dynamics: November 2003 Archives
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? :-)
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.
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.
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'.
