Mentoring Project: October 2003 Archives

ìThe sufficient test of the wisdom of oneís measures is found by walking them around the forum, and personal ambition (from ambio: to go around, as in a canvas) need not be at odds with public accordî (Harriman on republicanism, Political Style, 114). ìAnd so [Cicero] argues back and forth, with himself and others, always trying to find the solution most satisfying to the most peopleî (114).

Iím kinda liking this old Greek guy, at least as he is represented by Harriman. Some quotes (summaries, paraphrases) of interest:

ìThese precepts [self-government, civic virtues, cautions against private and commercial interests]Örequire that public institutions (such as the [university], public practices (such as the [instruction of communication], and public figures (such as [faculty]) cultivate a moral sense in the [student body] that would result in decisions being made primarily with regard to the common good. [This] achievementÖrequires active participation by individuals successfully striving to overcome their private interests through common deliberation, and the stability of the [department] through time depends on its ability to cultivate individuals possessing this virtuous characterî (96). I am thrilled so many faculty are coming on Sunday! Go TEAM! :-)

ìGadamer emphasizes that interpretation always requires explicit mediation between the text and its recreation in the present. This mediation is exemplified by the process of translation, which inevitably involves decisions to emphasize or de-emphasize features of the original textî (98-99). Also, ìGadamerís requirement that ëevery translation that takes its task seriously is at once clearer and flatter than the originalíî (99-100). Li and I are engaged in this process right now as we develop the script for Sundayís performance. :-)

ìCicero revealsÖhis use of the letters as a hermeneutical space: They become an explicit mediation of his other texts and so a medium of understandingî (99). As Iíve been attempting (in fits and starts) with the blogÖ

The 4 basic topics (banter, business, politics and personal burdens) and the 4 mood tones (joy of combat, angst, fretting, anguish) in Ciceroís letters ì[suggest] that the basic action of Ciceroís story is emotional movementî (101). An early example of reflecting upon oneís own subjectivity?

Some comments on ìmiddlebrow artistryî (102) seems likely to predict the quality of our theatrical attempt. (Horrors!) Hannah wants ìcampî (me in drag!) but I tried to explain that would be a bit of a diversion from our primary task (weíre focused more on ethnicity and nationality than on gender and sexual orientation).

ì[The] ability to abstract a situation (by defining it in terms of the formal elements of its composition) and then set aside the abstraction (and so return to the situation and act) is an essential movement in this technical intelligenceî (103-4).

A reminder (again!) of ìthe classical concept of decorumÖto consider propriety Ö [as] Ö norms of appropriateness ñ for example, to occasion, subject, and characterÖIn every case, ëwhatever else decorum is, it is essentially balance in oneís entire way of life as well as in individual actions.í Within the republican style, both influence and integrity will come from balancing the tensions between assertion and deference, virtue and virtuosityÖî (106).

ìCivic republicanismÖis a manner of thinking animated by the social practice of public debate and the performative ideals of the art of oratory. It is staged, and so grander than life; it is aesthetic, and so experienced rather than avowed; andÖaddressed to the events of the dayÖî (107).

Assumptions about public address: ìit provides strict accountability, is a mode of action, and is decisiveî (108).

ìThe attitude here is comic, for the political relationship constituted in speech is achieved by all pretending to be what they initially are notî (110, emphasis added!) Social construction of realityÖor should I dare even more precision? The dialogic or discursive construction of reality. :-) It reminds me of Madeline LíEngleís definition of faith as ìthe willing suspension of disbelief.î

ìThe political strategy implicit in this culture is to shore up the [department], first, by keeping everyone reading, writing, and talking, and, second, by providing for a culture of eloquence that is more versatile and so more adaptable to change because it is grounded in several verbal artsî (112).

ìThe proper analysis of a situation requires coordination of what others involved think is and should be the case and that a decision must maintain both the express objectives of policy and the political relations sustaining policy makingî (113, emphasis added). To wit, Cicero proclaims (in a given instance): ìI am defending as best I can the alliance I myself cementedî (113).

Ciceroís 4 types of decorum: human nature, individual character, circumstance, and career choice. ìíPrimarily we must decide who we want to be, what kind of person we want to be, and what sort of life we want to leadíî (117).

ìRepublican composition occurs within a dialectic of internal dialogue and external performanceî (119).

As Farrell uses the term, "'integrity' deals with the way issues and positions fall out and hold up over the course of an ongoing episode...integrity is less an attribute specifically applicable to persons and their character than an emergent, acquired trait of messages that are presented and upheld in public life. It is the openness of a rhetorical forum that brings our positions from a stance of foreclosure to one of exposure....Within such a forum, positions hold still long enough to elicit some sense of their answerability" (1993:305).

Man-oh-man. Today I wrap up the "recruitment" phase (everyone will breathe a huge sigh of relief, I'm sure!) and the group will begin to solidify. Will it be surgery or therapy? Stephen posed the challenge to me and Li in class last night. We may try to strike a middle-ground BUT...a comic script has begun to take shape. It's gonna be wild. :-)

Did I post the emails discussing a perception some international students have about domestic students and faculty being "indifferent?" Details are starting to slip away from me...! (As Hannah would say, "DUH!")

Sounds like me: ìRhetoric, above all, is about chance and circumstance, about learning in publicî (Farrell, 256). Iím thinking we should call the session on Sunday a ìconversationî because of the way the topics and themes and even the direction of the overall discourse has emerged as weíve progressed: according to Farrell, ìconversation usually takes shape through an emergent sense of directionalityî (240). Originally, my desire was to produce a movie directed towards helping Americans figure out what we need to do differently in order for international students to feel more welcome ñ a climate project. What has transpired is a growing sense of unity among international and domestic students about the issues, concerns, and challenges we face in common. This has already shifted the nature of the dialectic from international/domestic to graduate student/faculty.

Yet rhetoric is obviously part of this process ñ the need for publicity/recruitment as this project competes for another significant chunk of precious time, as well as the planning aspects of selecting clips and organizing themes for presentation. Farrell suggests that rhetoric and conversation are bound up with each other, and ìas long as conversation is possible, the horizon of rhetorical reflection remains availableî (233). He elaborates upon this as ìan important original partnership between dialogue and rhetoricÖ[which makes] possible public reflection with others, in addition to expansion of the world of actional choicesî (235). If I could be so bold as to pose an ultimate aim for the mentoring project, it would be that more choices are made available to everyone who participates. On Sunday, weíll have a unique 3-hour conversation with people who both share and differ from us in terms of ìordinary life conventions and normsî: weíll have the rare opportunity to practice ìimprovis[ing] ways of speaking across such conventionsî (236) regarding the delivery and reception of mentoring. (Wow ñ THAT transmogrified into bald persuasion! {grin}]. :-)

So, while weíll seek to set a tone for a conversation among equally-interested parties, recognizing everyoneís vested interest, we will engage in some intentionality around the direction of the discourse: ìRhetoric is a discourse that develops processually in the direction of something beyond itselfî (255). The ìsomethingî could be the kind of image one wants to be portrayed of any/all of our various subjects, the kind of model of mentoring to be promulgated, a particular criticism that must be heard/received, a hope or vision of what things might become. Whatever the relationship between the desired and actual direction of the discourse (once it is engaged), the particular benefits (!) of participation are not likely to be acquired in any other way. When else are you ñ we - going to have such a block of uninterrupted faculty/student time to discuss an issue of such pervasive reach?

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.

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 ...

At 2:12 PM -0400 10/14/03, boromisza@comm.umass.edu wrote:

Hm, you guys really made me think about an image that might stand for the
mentoring process. Last night an alternative to the bridge occurred to me. The
bridge emphasizes the individual's road to success, and I was trying to focus
in on the ideal outcome. I think the ultimate outcome of an experince
facilitated by mentoring is integration into the community. I see mentoring as
the facilitation of engaging in the life of the department, of the university,
and of any other community that students wish to become inculded in. I
think "community" is best represented by an image that somehow suggests the
interconnectedness of parts that together constitute a system. The image of
the nervous system is the first thing that comes to my mind, with the thin
tendril-like arms running from one nerve cell to the other.

("Nervous system..." hehe. Man I feel like part of a really nervous system
these days... :-)

At 4:16 PM -0400 10/14/03, Stephanie Jo Kent wrote:
Some kind of schematic? A biological, textbook representation? We'll have to start looking...

btw - David, that jibe (about being part of a really nervous system) isn't about my need for psychiatric care, is it?

At 9:39 PM -0400 10/14/03, li gu wrote:
Hi David, Hi Steph,

The nervous system IS a great concept!!

From what I have heard, from both U.S. and int'l students, people are
yearning for a more generally supportive community. However, there is also a
shared feeling that if there is any community, it is yet to be built. So the
idea of community building fits winderfully. I also like it for it is
process-oriented.

Of course, characterization of "the" community has been varied from person
to person, people to people. However, it seems shared that the community
would be great if it has a more supportive structure while at the same time
promotes extensive individual (academic, emotional, material, professional)
development. With this understanding, I did a search for images of "brain
nervous system" and "nodes," and here are some that impress me most. I've
tried to pick images that suggest both "structuredness" and certain
"deviances." However, the degree to which each of the characteristics are
allowed, accommodated, or not, varies. So we may pick more than one of them.
If these pics are too scientific, or just not good enough, how about some
more artistic drawings or paintings?

At 10:38 PM -0400 10/14/03, Stephanie Jo Kent wrote:

Could we superimpose the community image over the broken bridge? Juxtapose them in some way? Ditch the bridge completely?

At 2:03 PM -0400 10/15/03, boromisza@comm.umass.edu wrote:

I'm glad you guys liked the idea! I did a search on "neuron" and I got these
two pics. See attached.

At 12:50 AM -0400 10/16/03, li gu wrote:

LETíS COMMUNITY!!!

Nov. 2nd, 1-4pm
staff, faculty, grad students,ñ
Intíl Graduate Student Mentoring Project Invites YOU

At 9:04 PM -0400 10/16/03, boromisza@comm.umass.edu wrote:

I think this slogan is amazing. Let's community... This captures the
process in the concept so well that it would make Vernon (and John Dewey) cry
with joy :-) No, seriously, this slogan rocks the house party, as Iris would
put it.