Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f7QL4Kf02358; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001901c12e72$37df1200$649b2a3f@computer> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "gdemetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:577] Re: Habermas & Internet X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 11769 Lines: 212 Harry: Thanks for your informative description of your emerging project. Let me comment and/or ask some questions about some of the aspects of your message. I, too, am very interested in the lists as a discourse system, obviously from the point of view of a participant observer. Most compellingly, regardless of specific lists or threads, the most fundamental discourse that comes to my mind, is the field speaking to itself in some of the multitudinous of voices that comprise it--with due acknowledgement to the impact of the digital divide as well as acknowledging that some prefer to speak while others prefer to write as a first language. Given those caveats, considering the several lists, some of which go back to 1995, and the perhaps, 20,000 messages housed in the archives, perhaps the most significant long-term impact of the lists is the historical repository of the field speaking across geography and rank in "real" time. Whether that is significant or banal, others can surely comment. I also wonder to what extent the lists have been drawn upon for staff development purposes. A thoughtful study of the archives will elicit a wide array of topics and perspectives that can substantially add to one's own perspective as well as to others in staff development or training perspectives. It all takes time though, which may be one of the underlying dilemmas in drawing richly and rigorously from the archives. What I see are certain motivational dynamics that compel the immediacy of writing as topics burst forth. The recent flurry on the NALS controversy is a prime example. People expressing a diverse range of ideologies and positionality weighed in with passion, insight, and power on this provocative topic. We've seen this on many others. Check out the current discussion on the LD list on "What 'grade level' Really Is." (http://literacy.nifl.gov/nifl-ld/2001/). These kinds of discussions are the bread and butter of the lists. When they're going really well, they can get the field hopping. Beyond that, what is stated so visibly on the lists is not likely to exist in books or in other formats, or in local conversations. This is a new genre of experimental writing where the forms are still emerging, though "orthodoxies" also abound that could well limit the improvisational dynamism that a new art form requires. What I wonder about is what happens to the discourse once the immediate conversations begin to flag? Is such talk ultimately ephemeral; powerful in the moment, perhaps, but dissipated over a longer period of time as so many other conversations both on and off line continue to flow and direct energy? Or are people continuing to work with the texts whether in staff or personal development, research, curriculum and materials development, public relations, etc? I find your commentary about the "constitution of the lists" provocatively interesting both as related to the participants (speakers and lurkers) as well as to the rules of each list (formal and informal). To that, and it's implicit in what you suggest, I would add the importance of the political culture which underlies the lists. This is based on the Freirian assumption that the pedagogical is political and the political is pedagogical. This is also based on my assumption that the politics of literacy (broadly defined as in the previous sentence) is the underlying framework through which meaning in this field is articulated and needs to be grasped. Therefore, getting at any discourse related to the "constitution of the lists" would need to get at the politics of literacy, including the hidden or silent curriculum, if you will, that gives shape to it. As a controversial example, take the recent NALS flurry. As it was stated during that conflict, critical issues related to pedagogy and assessment have been raised for a number of years on various listservs with minimal rebuttal and critical commentary from the policy establishment. (Note the passive tenses in which that sentence and some of the ones following are written, designed to defuse the intense emotionality which characterized the original discussion). Yet, when this latest controversy appeared, sparked by a provocative Washington Post article, the policy establishment not only sent counter letters to the Post, but messages to the lists stating that they had done so and in some cases, placing those letters on the lists. Beyond that, "arcane statistician debates" were caricaturized or minimized, even though for years the policy community drew upon the legitimacy of those statistics in making the public case. Does research serve policy or does policy need to stem from sound research? I suggest that this is not a minor issue, though its resolution would require much careful probing--a fully public probing and a critical working out of the issues among a broad plurality of what constitutes the field, though that's my editorial assertion. >From a discourse perspective, what is interesting is not so much the specifics of the NALS controversy, though that remains important as does the broader unresolved issue of whether sound pedagogy will inform policy or whether policy will inform pedagogy. All that is very critical and ongoing to many list threads, including the current LD discussion. What is even more interesting, at least to me, is the relative silence when the issue was raised in depth on the lists; then the sudden (and to me, somewhat defensive) vocality once the matter got the attention of the Post and *then* was raised on the list. Also of interest, the actual academic issue raised about the legitimacy of the ratio for determining "levels" (a dubious concept from the get go, but another matter), was never directly and fully responded to by the policy community, which then begged the larger question of the role of research in determining policy. That silence, which I believe is a form of discourse, and then the sudden speaking, is worth a thousand tons of analysis. In terms of the level of democracy that characterizes the lists, I would agree that the potential for that is clearly there--a potential which I believe needs to be nourished. I think what requires careful attention, in addition, is the degree of "norming" that may also be taking place, wherein certain messages are interpreted (by some--and who those some are, is very important to the constitution, as you state) as more and or as less than legitimate and/or significant. In any event, I agree with you on the potential viability of this format as well, as the evident creation of a fresh genre of discourse, which may only the visibility that the listservs could bring out. I appreciate the depth of your probing of the modes of discourse that characterize the lists and look forward to learning a great deal more of your research. As a final comment, my writing of this particular message was basically improvisational. I intended to say a few words in the beginning, then insert a few comments or ask a couple of questions that I had intended to insert within various aspects of your text. Though I began with that intention, I followed through on the trajectory of my intuition and let my comments flow as they were coming. Although this, observation, too, may be banal, without your text I could never have written this one. This kind of interaction among writers may be one of the most dynamic aspects of this mode of communication. What are the learning modalities that impel this genre of writing? Can it be expanded? To students? To others? Though I believe it can be, we often limit the potentiality for fresh e-writing because of other commitments or perhaps just as much so, because of orthodoxies, perceived or otherwise, that might limit what we are willing to say in public. I hope that the adult literacy community will continue to work through this in order to build on this art form. This has been and can continue to be even more so, a quite vital expression of literacy in action. One final comment. This note took about 90 minutes to write, which included careful editing. There is an important matter of commitment. For this genre to flourish, folks will need to feel they can commit serious time to it. This may have as much to do with value as it does with time. I'm making no value judgment in the narrow sense, though the issue involves value judgment in the broader philsophical sense as to whether this art form merits the time required to develop it well. George Demetrion GDemetrion@msn.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "hforster" <hforster@strato.net> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:32 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:576] Re: Habermas & Internet > I have used Habermas's Communicative Action in some community negotiations > and have found it to be very effective. I feel that there is a place for > this within a discussion community on the internet. > > My present interest is much broader than Habermas. I have been working on > the development of a brain-oriented technique for reading. It is my opinion > that this work can be brought into an internet community in the context of > open systems, open software, free software, etc. To do this successfully > requires an understanding of the law of the code as popularized by Lawrence > Lessig. This extends into the laws imposed by the software used to power > the site. > > With these as a backgound I next come to the dynamics of internet > communities. This is Habermas, Maslow, and many of the Open Systems writers > who are less well known to the general public. I am still in the stage of > data gathering which I do by observing several lists. I have learned how > important the constitution of the list is to its success. Constitution is > used here with two meanings. The first is related to the constitutional > rules of the list and the by-laws of its operation. These can be formal or > informal and to some extent implicit and assumed from other sources. > > I have found that the constitution of the list membership is critical. The > open and free nature of internet communities creates a level of democracy > that is well beyond anything that we have known before. It makes obvious > the need for good leadership. I can say at this time that the reason I am > following the Adult Literacy lists is because of the very positive properties > that they are showing. I attribute this to both the general composition of > the membership and the leadership. > > Open Systems is a concept that has much to offer to those who are not in the > center of the mainstream economic and social systems. The earliest basic > form of the concept opens the restrictive nature of the intelectual property > laws for computer software. This fosters individual rights to access and > modify products. In other applications it opens the development process to > the general public. The indications are that this leads to better products > faster. > > There have been efforts to expand the concept to other areas such as > publications, etc. The most successful efforts have been those that parallel > the software efforts. My observations indicate that there is a basic > symbiotic relationship between the Open Systems movement and conventional > capitalism. The most obvious are the transformations that have come in > companies such as IBM, Oracle, and Netscape. It is interesting that the > defense and security portions of the U.S. governemnt are also moving into > this culture for research, development, and deployment. > > I know that I will be using open systems in the reading area as soon as I can > understand what and how.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:08 EST