Every one here has made some good points, but the marks for "plays well
with others" are not high.
Several years ago, when I took over the division chair I suggested that
now that the division was established, we should pursue some discursive
strategies about what to do with it - something we didn't really have
the luxury in the midst of the organizational struggle get the division
created. Unfortunately, I wasn't effective in getting the broader
leadership on board with that idea. Indeed, I would say that the
division has not so much lost its direction as it never had a clearly
defined one. Given all the concerns flying about now, maybe this is the
time to revisit the issue.
Toward that end, I would like to propose that at next year's ASC the
division have a non-agenda meeting, separate from the business meeting,
where any interested division members can engage in some open-ended (and
hopefully honest and kind) discussion about what the division ought be
and ought do. If there is interest, either Gregg or I can probably get
something scheduled as program committee members without cutting in to
the division's three sponsored sessions, by just using the division
room.
While I see some utility in e-list discussions, they have some
shortcomings related to their lack of face-to-face interactive
immediacy. This leads to several problems. First, it is far easier to
misinterpret or misunderstand meanings absent the non-verbal cues that
mean so much. Second, cyber-space is very large and so images,
identities, and egos tend to expand in an effort to fill it - unlike
face-to-face space which is constricted by the presence of other humans
and their thoughts and their needs. So I think it would also be good if
we make time and space to sit down and talk with one another as embodied
human beings.
And we need to figure out how to pursue more common cause rather than
internecine warfare - to paraphrase Gitlin, "while progressives attacked
the English department, conservatives took Washington."
Ray