Message-ID: <19991217005308.AAA14214@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:20:05 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: The Scientist: What's That? (18k To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
--,'Face to face' has been, since Roman times, confrontational. The great blessing of the telephone was not so much ‘privacy’ (after all, party lines were common into the 60s) as *invisibility. One could say what one wanted to say without all the folderol (in those days one might still call it social intercourse) that had been necessary to ensure that a person-to- person encounter would *not be understood as confrontational. That this is called privacy only reflects the reduction of communication to its *content, while ‘public’ has increasingly come to mean only just such ‘folderol’ - superfluous to the needs of 'information.' The dilemma of cyberspace is that this telephonic convention has returned to a public medium. Ms A speaks with Sri B as if in a vacuum; if some third party speaks up, it is assumed to be reinforcements on one 'side' or the other -- say, with references or corrections to already stated material -- while everyone else waits their turn. (Whether this re-grafting occurred as a consequence of the 'opening up' of the internet, or if it was already underway, I cannot say. Nevertheless, I am not alone in noting the dreary atmosphere of so many lists which were lively and interesting places 4 or 5 years ago, and I am uncomfortable with the implication of there being so many people -- not who have nothing to say, but who *do not know* they have something to say, because it does not fit in the 'accepted forms of discourse.')
I suggest that the ‘accepted forms’ are as obsolete -- and *uninteresting -- as that of a 1950 Doubleday paperback. We, the wired elite, are not now, here, to talk *to someone, but we havent yet accepted the alternative of talking *with... the world. For me, at any rate, and on the strength of some evidence -- the necessary conceptual breakthrough is that not *speaking but listening is the issue. (You think I like to hear myself speak? Well, I do -- because I have *learned to listen*, and I can do it with you, too, if you wish.)
Sadly, learning to listen is taught in none of the institutions (but jails have literacy programs!); kids thus mature and become parents without knowing that listening to *their kids is the most critical aspect of any family structure. And mature people become school administrators and policy directors without listening to anything but the imperialist, imperative form, as if civil, civilized society no longer exists and as if the regimented, unimaginative, uncreative world Wiener foresaw has actually come about. But how can any one, adult or child, researcher or executor, *demand there be put in place a system for cultivating *flexibility? In the first place, they havent got the *standing to order it done, and secondly, they do not know that it is necessary to demand, because they have not been taught. (All learning comes from teaching, isnt that right?) The quandary is no longer an *issue, because there is no language in which it can issue. (Cf N. Chomsky on the 'political' ramifications of speech control.) The one tool that has truly universal application, never wears out, requires no batteries is atrophying.
Wiener makes the point more than once, that "speech is a joint game by the talker and the listener *against the forces of confusion* (92) and that *therefore "language ... suvives by the very fact of its use and survival ..." (93, dont you love that recursion?) Use it or lose it -- I shudder to think of the day even English is a dead language, but it surely will not be long.
Another image is that of petrification, as *both the cellulosic structure and the cellular voids are mineralized. Environmentally, this is not simple substitution but loss of diversity. Perhaps by now my penchant for emphasising dualities as a dynamic interchange rather than as Aristotelian categoricals (either A or non-A) is understood
You may think it is simply a matter of non-interference; that only *wilful attempts to subvert it to ends other than human understanding need be guarded against. (Is this why Robert Johnson's 3 or 4 oneliners triggered several hearty paragraphs of indigant response -- with fully quoted messages to boot? But noise is easily filtered; the question is not what *interferes but what *confuses the channel. Ctrl-D works for RJ perfectly well, but what can you do with empty phrases? How do well-meant but nevertheless personal, irrelevant and essentially *reactionary 'position statements' contribute anything? So we know that some people we rarely hear from have some favourite words, and -- I guess -- that they imagine that if others use those same words it will *mean the same thing. Isnt it time to grow a little way beyond *content as a criterion, when understanding is what is required?)
You may think that speaking only when 'important' matters arise is a valuable trait. I agree -- but I reserve the right to set my own criterion for importance, as any of us online should be learning to do without making any great hue and cry about the fact of doing so. I think language is important, and (knowing that I have at best a short week to make my case), I have spoken to it, as clearly as possible. I have been listening too, naturally, and will continue to do so.
You may think that passively 'tuning out' stuff which is 'not interesting' is unrelated to any active need to tune in. In a mechanical world, they would indeed be binary opposites. For humans, and I think Wiener can stand as a pretty good reference, it is *learning which swings the two out of opposition and somewhat closer to parallel: Why is it ? - meaning, what criterion are you applying, and where did *it come from? How can one help to make it interesting? - meaning, what other criteria can one apply? In the end, isnt it *your 'critical' application which makes *your mail 'interesting' to those who have yet to discover what makes this virtual world go around? Why should you not contribute to the massive amount of global reeducation which needs to occur (for any number of obvious reasons) -- that is, to be a teacher *even if no one knows who you are or what it is you do? Is it some one else's 'responsibility'? Some one else's WHBY?
How else are the lurkers and the neophytes going to learn to think? I know what they learn from intellectual silence -- they learn to be easily distracted, and seduced, and addicted, and violent, and manipulated *because there is nothing else going on in their world*.
Is this not a development issue? If not, why not?
========== As I say, 'face to face' is confrontational, and if the Douglases of the world (and they are legion!) insist that they not be confronted in conversation -- that one must approach obliquely (prostrately?) with eyes averted, then I confess I started out pretty awkwardly. But the solution is not to just say 'Sorry,' and move to greener pastures where people are more ready to *agree with you. We've done that for 50 years, and the world is not a prettier place for it. (Do you prefer Atrazine or cyanide or trichloromethane in your well water?)
But what is one to do? Am I still grinding the same old axe, or does language technology offer a solution? What else is there, in fact, except to *surround them? In dialogue there is not just an A and a B, there is also C, Sr(s) Tres, for very good reason. My mistake was to tackle DMH singlehandedly -- and once he started to run, he did rather get away from me. But then, where was 3, my comrades in discourse? Christian resigned, and Don has bowed out## -- I suppose Robert might have come in if he'd been up to date! (Again, *content or competence does not matter*. We're on a deeper plane, remember?) Several others I know simply sat on their hands behind their invisible screens, and while I am not embarrased by their negligence, isnt it clear that a generous dollop of intervention (‘moderation’ is too loaded a term!) would have saved *you the embarrasment of having your synapses dissected here in front of the world?
But, why buy trouble? Midwest US farmers learned in the the Depression that your neighbour's farm is your own. Folks pool together, buy it at the foreclosure auction, and give it back to him -- because he'll do the same for them. Su casa es mi casa.
Everybody likes to talk about virtual community, but there is precious little evidence of it in the event, because, simply, we're scared to put *anything on (the) line. We post platitudes and homilies and jokes, and wait for people to agree with us, by posting more hollow speeches and more inanities. But we never get to the common ground, because we have not learned that speech is action, that understanding is a shared experience, and that it doesnt come easy -- that it is the *antithesis to the do-it-alone ethos of the North.
So, when the next hothead shows up, I hope we see a halfdozen folks who can strike up a lively conversation not as a 'distraction,' but as an education. It would sure make life a lot easier for those trying to figure out what in blue blazes is going on here. But is that maybe too much? Am I a generation or two too late? Should I settle for the hope that even *one person knows what conversation is, and what it is for? (What, did you think I meant one person as a *speaker? God knows, there are always speakers!)
Thanks for listening, I've never thought these ideas quite this way before, and I couldnt have done it without you. But you'll have to excuse me if I dont yet call this outfit a 'development community.'
======== A footnote:
## "I hadn't meant [that] the interchange between you and Douglas be brought up again...." No, I understood what Don *meant was, "Here’s an opportunity to show your hand of Authorities and References,” but again, I declined to follow that one-up/ one-down strategy. Let’s say I had a vision, and I go out into the street to determine how much of it is *real. But instead of asking what Is or Isnot, my command of the language (my reference phrasebook) is such that I can only ask, Who sees what I see? Even when I (with Douglas’ help) provide real-time ‘footage,’ I get evasions instead of Answers, most folks (of course??) are too busy to look, but one asks for permission to see anything, another sees it, but policy forbids admitting it... Almost no one asks for more detail, or analyses the differences between what each of us sees. (Isnt it interesting that a person-in-the-street has to be the scientist/ expert/ professional, because real (that is, paid) scientists study only what *are the facts, and professionals profess only "what works"? Hmmm, is that why they gussy it up in terms no one else understands?)
But this paradox led me, as it now leads you, to my last point: the testing and evaluation of development. How does one know when a conversation (even a friendly one!) is finished and its time for a new topic?/ How does a community *communicate that it has had enough development (thank you kindly), even if it thought its benefactors could control the process? Yes, feedback, that’s right -- but what kind of feedback?
===== Story time:
Once, I wanted to survey development agencies *and their beneficiaries*, and to include the question, Would the agent’s having had more understanding of _how to develop_ have improved his or her performance on the project? This was struck by a survey-design expert, who pointed out that the target group was far too diverse to get meaningful answers. She is quite probably right (even tho one suspects every response would have been YES) but it led me to a discovery.
There are no after-the-fact data from beneficiaries. Internal agency ‘evaluations’ may compile evidence of cost effectiveness, or the region of influence, or the projected returns on investment -- but few read them, and even fewer get them into the hands of those whose lives have been enriched, let alone carry back any suggestions from that side as to what might be done with them. Development is one field in which one defines ones own terms -- and by them, every project (however costly or extensive) is a success.
But, again, what kind of evidence would one look for? How does one know whether what one has achieved or undergone is ‘development’ or, shall we say, ‘other’? I began to look for possible parallels in education - - after all, isnt evaluation considered an essential part of that process? There may be problems of execution, but dont the ed-theorists know how to tell learning from mere imitation, copying of manners, the regurgitation of protective colouring? Unfortunately, and although there are as many ed-theories as theorists, not one of them ever says. Sure, they have plenty of ‘performance’ data, but performance of *what?
So my quick-and-dirty get-the-degree-and-get-out proposal to analyse development per se foundered, and here you see before you today, the dire consequences -- let it be a lesson to your youngsters! One thing led to another (as my advisors had seriously warned me they would if I took too long), and I took to thinking. (Well, what would *you have done?) Why not use a cybernetic model?
If the purpose of feedback is to change an initial action (and while no- feedback is also feedback, it does not prompt change -- as you may have noticed), then couldn’t I posit *imitation as evidence of a noncybernetic relation, and look for things ‘student’s did differently from ‘teachers’ as a *result of their interaction? It didnt take long to notice that students do masses of things differently from their teachers, anyhow -- but I didnt give up, and the quintessential statement finally occurred to me: How many students (ever) *act like teachers*? (Whereupon, the answer popped right out: barely 1 in 30 -- think about it).
Well, then, how many communities ever act like agents of change? Do the good citizens of Donwanna ever organize to bring their fellows to the light, across the way in Makimi? Not that I ever heard of. Does this suggest that they ‘got developed’ but they didnt *learn to develop? That while they may have imitated development (by giving ‘right answers’ to the agents of change), they really werent into change? That the putatively dynamic, interactive outreach of cross-cultural understanding ("to create an equitable and just world," 11/23) is a process as dead as a lab frog’s hind leg? If there is an odour of nausea about it, maybe the air needs *diffusion, as with any other pollutant. If the distinction between noise and confusion depends on *consistency, can one speak of information contamination simply from *over-concentration -- asking too few people to do the job of too many? Whatever happened to "Each one, teach one"? Doesnt the Internet make it more practical than ever?
====== Da capo:
So when I say I‘m looking for folks who can make conversation as an *education, I mean to apply a plain and simple test: does their conversation leads to more conversation? If we havent learned to develop (if we cant even *recognize it as development) at this piddling scale, what are we doing out there in the real world? Understanding that would indeed make life easier for those who are trying to figure out what is going on -- that is, who wish there was a language in which to express their concerns -- because understanding is the essential ingredient for any *human recipe of change.
And when I say I thank you for listening, I'm equally serious. I hereby testify that none of the posts of the past week were pre-planned or regurgitated. I might have *learned to do it, but I havent ben able to *do it half so well, without your profound patience and quiet smiles. So altogether now (the world is watching!), let’s hear it for Donwanna -L!
kerry
=================== On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:00:53, Kofi V Anani mailto:<kanani@UOGUELPH.CA> wrote Re: Road to Pan-Africanism - another development perspective:
This is nice talk ... but how do we ensure the dreams of Pan-Africanism are realised? What concrete steps need to be taken in light of the flawed Modern African States on the continent which seem to have lost all direction and capcity to promote peaceful co-existence and transformation of the poor majority?. Is it not time for the pan-African crusade to include concrete suggestions and strategies to achieve that envisaged african unity? Is it only enough to call for African unity without any proposed agenda on how to get to that goal? Have we not heard enough of this call for unity which always end as soon as the delegates leave the conference halls [and mailing lists] and back to their countries?
========= On 11/23/99 6:21:41, mailto:elaine3@mindspring.com wrote:
[...] a Jewish philosopher in the 13th century stated that the highest form of charity is that which ensures that the poor person gains an [*]independent[*] means of earning a living [and expressing a belief].
========
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:55:00, Kelly Thompson mailto:<kthompson@PARTNERS.CA> wrote re: FW: LISTSERV ETHICS :
> If we are addressing development issues we are missing the point if we
> cannot interact respectfully on an individual level. Without
> relationships based on trust, we will get nowhere in meaningfully
> exploring issues or furthering the "development" agenda with each other,
> or, as in my case, with southern partners. ... This is "our" listserv
> and we have an ethical responsibility as a group to protect
> participants. If we do not, the listserv will lose credibility and
> people with potentially valuable contributions will leave or remain
> silent in fear of retribution or harassment.
>
[Good work, KT, but can you do something abt those glittering generalities? Where is Kofi's concrete? |{hm.]
~/keepingon.htm