Jon Epstein (sssitalk) wrote: "The point isn't to point out what's
wrong, the point is to change it." The point is people reacted, so maybe
something changed after all. I'm not sure who changed it though. :-)
TALKING ACROSS LISTS (to everyone)
Okay, here's a new thread. I'm going to try to combine four threads
- 'Inferring emotions' from *Qualrs-l* (qualitative research), 'Who am I?'
from *Narrative-l* ,'Accounts and identity' from *interact*, and 'Personal
backgrounds' from *sssitalk* (symbolic interactionism) - and one
phenomenographic principle - Ference Marton's idea of 'describing the
variation in ways of experiencing the same thing'. And just for fun, I'm
going to post to all five lists. Apologies to those who are on the other
lists and will therefore get several copies of this, but I thought it might
be interesting to see what happens when cybercommunities are linked not
just by some common members, but by common threads. [Perhaps I'm heading
for a flame here :-)]
WEAVING THREADS
First, on Qualrs-l a while back, there was some discussion about
the Internet phenomenon of 'flaming', which led to talk about how we infer
emotions from what we see written on the screen. One of the comments I made
was:
"I think our form of discourse betrays our personal agendas, our
value systems. The way people talk doesn't really say very much at all
about the recipient, but says a lot about the sender and what s/he projects
onto the recipient (pretty tricky to decide what those agendas are without
people coming clean though!)."
Second, a few days ago, I posted to Narrative-l something I wrote
as a teaching aid for a seminar on progressive focussing in research, and
the personal journey this represented. In response, someone wrote back to
me with the question:
"Can you tell me a bit more about what you do, who you are, What
Your Problem Is? :-)"
For some reason, that gave me quite a jolt. It seemed to fit neatly
into one of the list's aims: namely, to explore 'narration as a mode of
self-presentation'. However, nobody had ever come straight out on a
discussion group and asked me about me. In response, I wrote:
"It is so difficult to know where to begin when asked what I do, or
who I am. And when the verbal is all that is available, it seems harder. I
could SHOW you if you followed me round for a while. And you might learn
something from my context, from those who know me. But I really don't think
I could tell you who I am. Without knowing you, it becomes really hard to
give you a picture of me. That's what makes it so interesting. I have just
about nothing to go on. So I don't know what would interest you, please
you, embarass you. The responsibility for presenting myself looms large. I
have no clues as to what you would count as answers to your questions 'what
do you do, and who are you?'"
Third, the suggestion came on sssitalk to flesh out our knowledge
of who is out there on the list by offering personal backgrounds.
Fourth, my degree of activity and range of interests on some lists
has been noted in private correspondence, and seen as perhaps unusual by
some, so I find myself trying to decide whether I want to account for
myself. And I find giving an account of my identity through electronic mail
highly problematic. This has reminded me (in perhaps a timely way) that
what I ask of my informants even outside cyberspace is not an easy task -
to give an account of who they are, what matters to them, what they do and
why they do what they do.
Fifth, looking through the lens of phenomenography, I wondered what
the variation might be in how people within and across lists experienced
'me' and/or 'me through this message'.
WHO ARE YOU?
Trying to answer the question 'who am I' through e-mail made me
realise that I depend heavily on what I believe to be the identity and
agenda of my listener. The key to my problem of self-presentation lies in
what I wrote on Narrative-l:
"I have no clues as to what YOU would count as answers to your
questions 'what do you do, and who are you?'"
So, with little idea of with whom I am communicating, I have to
project onto a blank screen. It feels quite arbitrary what I choose to
tell. One might argue that people on these lists would be interested in my
'researcher persona'. But then, my whole history contributes to what I am
now, and everything that I am now characterises the kind of researcher I am
becoming. I can't tell you EVERYTHING about me, not least because I don't
know everything about me. And I become less sure every day which bits of me
I can reliably count as being irrelevant to my research.
So before I know how to frame my self-presentation for you, I need
to know at least something about you. But then, you would have to know
about me. Chicken and egg problem ...
CONSTRUCTING MY IDENTITY
So, if I don't know anything about you, I can always imagine who
the audience is and write accordingly. But suppose I don't. Well, what I
write will depend on whim. Anything might come out. (But, of course, it
won't. I'm bound to imagine something about you lot out there. I already
have in framing my thoughts in this particular way.) And so I could
construct an identity for you. Whose identity would it be? Would it really
be an identity? And as soon as you read it, you will be adding your own
meanings; perhaps your meanings completely obliterate mine. And whose
identity is it then?
WHAT DO YOU TAKE ME FOR? ...
So, does anyone out there reckon they've learnt anything about me
from this message? And if so, what? And how did you do it?
Alexander
PS For those who are interested, part of my work is trying to find out who
supply (substitute) teachers are, what they do, why they do it, and how
they conceptualise their experiences.
******************************************************************************
Alexander Massey, <alexander.massey@edstud.ox.ac.uk>
DPhil student, Department of Educational Studies, Oxford University, 15
Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, England
"If I am transparent enough to myself, then I can become less afraid of
those hidden selves that my transparency may reveal to others" Sheldon Kopp