Hi all - kia ora and mutse atsi

Like Matt, I welcome Sarah's contributions and hope you do not withdraw (or
feel excluded) from the list, Sarah.  I find your contributions
thought-provoking, even though I do not always agree with them.  I, for one,
have thoroughly enjoyed the range of greetings in other languages - in my
experience, to use the language of another in a simple way such as greetings
and farewells, is a good way to reach out and act 'inclusionally' as Yaakub
expresses it, without necessarily having to understand all the subtle
nuances of a term like ubuntu, which I still don't feel I understand enough
to use with any degree of appropriateness.  And I have found Mohsem's
'sign-off greetings' quite exceptionally wonderful.

A problem is that when we do not fully understand something from another
culture, it's easy to attack it or misconstrue it(not that I'm saying you're
doing that Sarah, please do not think that).  I am reflecting on an incident
over the weekend in which our All Blacks (rugby team, for those not in the
know) were playing Wales.  Last year, at the request of the Welsh, they
agreed to have the Maori haka that the team traditionally does at the start
of the match, inserted between the two national anthems, stressing that it
was a 'one-off' because of that year being the centenary of tests between
the two countries.  This year, the All Blacks refused to repeat the
insertion, as the haka is traditionally done just before 'battle' not as an
entertainment between two songs.  Now there is a lot of complaint that they
didn't conform to the request of the Welsh to do it the same as last year,
when last year was a total aberration done purely to avoid dissension with
the hosts on a really important occasion.  So a cultural action is being
requested 'at will' by a group (the Welsh in this case) who are not
discerning the real purpose of the haka, but just treating it as
entertainment.  This is an example of how easy it is for cultural practice
to be warped and misunderstood, and for dissension to occur.

What does this have to do with our esoteric language discussion?  I do think
we need to listen so carefully to each other in every way, but in the
process also to consider whether we are being unintentionally disinviting to
new people in the list by using language which we don't 'translate' the
first time we use it.  I remember on Jean McNiff's wonderful visit to New
Zealand a couple of years back, having the discussion with her and my friend
Ruth Gorinski, prior to Jean's presentation to some tertiary contexts, about
whether it was helpful to use terms like 'ontology' and 'epistemology' when
I knew there would be glazed looks from some of those present.  I was
arguing for simplicity in language to avoid exclusion; Jean and Ruth were
able to convince me that one of the reasons for using that kind of language
was, in turn, to avoid 'excluding' those attendees from engagement in the
kinds of academic language/reading/discussion that happens in academic
contexts.  I still choose not to use that language myself, but have had to
back down on my staunchness about using it with some groups, recognising
that perhaps I'm doing the usual Pip thing of rescuing people who don't need
rescuing (and perhaps, in the process, being patronising? Comes from being
2nd in a family of 8 kids, and always looking out for the 'younger ones'!)

Jack, I think the language in the Canadian ethics statement is very
appropriate and easily discernible by most, however far into 'academia' they
are.  Would that more academic statements were written in that way. Alon, I
recognise too your argument that not everyone is your audience, and you
write for your specific audience.  I guess I'm not that audience, but I
defend your right to write in that way and found it helpful that you
explained your reasoning.  Perhaps it would be helpful if the list monitors
would sometimes run a 'disclaimer' or something to remind new chums that the
list is contributed to by a wide range of people, and to have patience with
those of us contributors whose postings they may have difficulty in
understanding?  At the same time, I recognise the wisdom that Jack shared in
suggesting that it can be useful for us to stretch our minds (and
vocabulary) to take in a wider range of writers than we may initially feel
comfortable with.  I think Foucault is fabulous; his work underpinned my
PhD.

Enough from me; peaceful greetings to all and let's keep weaving a
multi-coloured rope in our discussion, not one with just limited colours
included.
Pip