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 f7R2vXf04379; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3B89B475.6BECFE7@strato.net> 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: hforster <hforster@strato.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:578] Re: Habermas & Internet X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) Status: O Content-Length: 11617 Lines: 194 George, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The discussion about LD that you pointed me to is very interesting and I am going to try to get caught up on it. I believe your statement about "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" is a critical and important understatement. Technology is pushing new phenomena on us that we are not prepared for. People have cell phones and they speak into them with a volume that has not been required since before they were born. It appears that the underlying causes of our behavior is psychological, a psychology that is going to have to be trained. We forget the enduring permanence of digital communications. We forget the openness of the internet communications. We sit in solitude and forget our exposure to the world. This is a partial answer to your question about "what happens to the discourse once the immediate conversations begin to flag? Is such talk ultimately ephemeral.." The memory may be but the record is not. List discussion can be more permanent and open than any form of discussion that we have seen before. The permanence is more accurate also because there is no interpreter such as a recording secretary. This means that there is great room for your later use for staff development, research, etc. The problem is that we are not trained in skills such as Habermas's Communicative Action and other such tools for guiding and analyzing discourse. A further problem is that the present law of the code does not facilitate the directing and focusing of discussion to a conclusion. In internet projects for software development there are programs such as CVS ( Current Version System) which helps document and display the current level of program progress. The present primitive nature of internet communication only adds to our work load by making available more information and communication than we have ever had. What we need is means that help us process this information in efficient and effect ways. Our job definitions do not consider that given the new resources we may be able to achieve better results if we took the time and the effort to do so. This is a confrontation of eastern and western philosophies. The work place pressure for quick answers from the internet places pressure on long discussions as you are well aware. One answer is the delete key but that may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. This issue just points to another unresolved community problem. With that I will say that I would like to say more but we may have over stayed our welcome, which is one of my personality weaknesses. Harry Forster gdemetrion wrote: > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:08 EST