Thanks Martine,
I am replying quickly to you via Ria's post because
I also wanted to encourage Ria to speak up and
defend her paper presentation, if she feels up to it
and has time to do so. Many of us will probably
never hear your future papers, so why not post your
past presentation here in its entirety, if that's
possible? I would love to read more of people's work
firsthand.
Ria, you're probably right that some people feel
intimidated or nervous about sharing their
views/theories with the list. It is quite odd that
if there are 90 members subscribed to this forum,
that only about 10-15 of us contribute on a regular
basis.
I think part of the apprehension may be based in
cultural difference: most of you are British (at
least that's my sense of the group of people who
post), and some of us (myself included) feel a bit
brash or pushy when joining in your discussions.
There's also the sense that 'Dark Tourism' is a
cluster of people who know each other and work
together as colleagues, whereas the rest of us are
faceless names on the screen. It's harder to
interact with people whom you don't 'know' in some
sort of embodied way. Finally, there is the risk of
saying something stupid or inadvertently hurtful,
which I am very adept at doing. Many others may be
more reluctant to take those chances.
Your thoughts as a grad student are inspiring to me,
since I share your rather lowly and precarious
position. I'm inpsired by your desire to want to
sidestep the academy's many forms of ritualized
symbolic violence in favor of another mode of
exchange. I feel we can slowly work towards that in
this forum by doing what you and Martine suggest:
realizing that we all come from different
backgrounds, with different opinions, different
'ethics,' and different modes of communicating our
dissent or agreement.
Best wishes, and thanks again.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ria Dunkley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:51 am
Subject: Reflections on reflections
> I had read and indeed been warned of how the
academy works, yet
> only now am
> I really experiencing it first hand which is
interesting in itself and
> inspires me to encourage changes in relation to
the way that we are
> as a
> community, in at least a small way, on this forum.
>
> After reading Philip?s review of the dark tourism
event, my initial
> reactionwas that I felt I wanted to defend my
presentation. Though
> the review poses
> some important questions and will indeed aid my
research, I felt
> that he had
> omitted many of the positive contributions that I
had made to the
> discussions and misinterpreted my main message and
so I felt that I
> shouldmake my thoughts clear. However, I then
realised that this is
> perhaps not
> the place that I would wish to defend it, saving
this for future
> papers.
> For sometime I have been trying to think up ways
of getting the silent
> members of the forum more involved in discussion
(we have over 90
> membersand less than 10 of these appear to
dominate the discussion
> most of the
> time). I?m not entirely sure why this is the case,
however, my
> speculationis that people maybe intimidated for
fear of being
> knocked-down for having
> opinions which don?t ?fit?, with the perceived
nature of our group.
> Surelythis should be an interchange which everyone
benefits from
> and we should be
> setting an example both at conferences and in
online situations to the
> students, who maybe engaging with us for the first
time? It would,
> in my
> opinion at least, be a terrible shame if these
people would see us as
> volatile. In tourism, a social discipline, there
aren?t, and indeed
> shouldn?t be rights or wrongs, only opinions and
expressions.
>
> I have been thinking about this for the majority
of the day, whilst
> notingthe back and forth of the discussion group
and my mind was
> lead back to an
> paper I read when I was making my decision of
opting for an
> alternativemethodological approach. The paper
deals with criticisms
> that Bochner (2001)
> faced when conducting narrative research, from
academics in favour
> of more
> traditional methods, only now does it?s meaning
accurately ring
> true for me,
> and I feel it lends itself to this discussion:
>
> ?Now I?ve got a huge problem. You see, I don?t
really want to
> engage in the
> kind of ritualised symbolic violence that is
characteristic of the
> academy.You know, the kind where one speaker
courteously tries to
> demolish another,
> using polite language to show the others
stupidity, ignorance, and
> narrowness. In many respects I find this kind of
academic discourse
> all too
> easy. Besides, I don?t like the kind of cold,
aggressive, and
> intimidatingperson I become when I do it.
Moreover, when I?m done,
> chances are they?re
> still going to believe what they?ve always
believes, and so will their
> followers, and so will I, and so will most of you.
So where is this
> going to
> get us? But then I keep thinking-hoping-that maybe
I can find a way to
> narrow the divide between ?them? and ?us?. There?s
a lot of room to do
> interesting and innovative work on both sides of
the divide, and there
> doesn?t have to be this winner-takes-all
mentality. The pitfalls of
> singularity- one purpose, one methodology, one
proper way to do and be
> social science-cut both ways. The question is how
do we learn to
> listen to
> each other? Is it possible to understand and
appreciate our
> differences? If
> we cut ourselves off from each other and never
talk or listen to
> one another
> the divide will only widen, and the alienation
will only deepen?
> (Bochner,2001:134).
>
> Though I know I won?t have reached all of you, but
I hope this proves
> meaningful to some, and helps to bring a few
members out of the
> woodwork!
> With kindness and understanding
>
> Ria
>
|