Dear Joan,
Thank you for this lucid and expansive response. I concur and empathize with
all that you say. The reasons that you give for saying it are right at the
heart of 'natural inclusionality'. The 'raised standards of abstract
rationality' actually amount to an 'impoverishment of standards' by means of
a cancerous eliminative process that ends in unsustainable monoculture (that
is the true hegemonic 'nature' of Darwinian selection).
You might enjoy the poem attached and pasted below.
Warmest
Alan
-----------------------------
A Language of Allusion
We searched the sures of here and there
And everywhere
To find a language of allusion
Which saves us from conclusion
Before the high and mighty
Who dooms us to occlusion
Through unforgiving passion
For what's been done and done by
All in the name of fashion
A judgement freed from lenience
That saves the inconvenience
Of taking stock of silence
Amidst the ruthless measure
Yet in that absence misses
The flow between the kisses
Which turns what's marked by crosses
From signs of wrong to right
For when that fine illusion
Of wording's fixed intrusion
Admits its lacked dimension
Of infinity in tension
The song sounding in its lyrics
Waxes into revelation
Of nakedness trembling with exhilaration
Beneath the harsh lining of its clothes
And in that shivering of hope and fear
All pretension falls from flaw to floor
No longer shrieking dreadful oaths
Against the marriage that it loathes
Between the sweet resistance of response
And what is held in open arms
That seek embrace in gentle warmth
Not that ice-hot war of words that harms
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Lucy Conolly" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
Dear Jack and Alan
Alan, you make a critical point that impacts on all enquiry. And having
raised the question of 'language', this inclines me to address the
'appropriacy' of the 'language' of research reportage in 'authentic' enquiry
in the oral tradition and / of indigenous knowledge. By language here, I am
referring to the language used by the researcher to write his or her thesis.
As a matter of principle, we, as a research team, hold that the
'appropriate' language for the writing of 'authentic' research is the
language in which the knowledge is originated, recorded in memory and
expressed in community, which in most of the instances that I am currently
engaged with is Zulu. But I also have, and am, supervising people whose
'mother-tongue', 'language of the heart(h)'is Afrikaans, and there have been
instances of Tamil, Gouro, Xhosa, and other. So what we are advocating is
that theses should be written in the language of origin for it to be
'appropriate' and 'authentic'.
And this raises a number of points. What happens when the university
language policy rules that the thesis must be written in the language of
instruction? Indeed! What does happen that the 'authenticity', and therefore
the 'quality', of the research is seriously compromised. At this point, I
would like to refer to the conversation that David Wilson and I and others
have recently had about translation, because it is precisely here that the
'traitorous' nature of translation comes into play. By way of precise
example, I have been asking my research team to write about 'ubuntu' and
'ukuhlonipha' as values which make their lives meaningful. And I have asked
that they write in Zulu, and then translate into English, for all of the
folk in the world who do not speak and understand Zulu. And we are finding
that the 'translation' becomes an impossibility. They tell me that there are
no English expressions which adequately express the notions of 'ubuntu' and
'ukuhlonipha' in a way that satisfies them, viz, meets the criterion of
'authenticity'. So we are now working with 'equivalence', and finding this
much more acceptable as it makes no pretence of translation in the exact
sense. What emerges here is that they are realising that they "live in two
worlds" (Theo Nyawose), a 'Zulu world' and an 'English world'. (And many
live in many more than two worlds as they are multilingual.) So they are
able to express and explain what 'ubuntu' and 'ukuhlonipa' means to them in
Zulu, and then again what these concepts mean to them in English. I see this
as an example of the use of multiple perspectives, lenses and worldviews.
What is most interesting about this situation is that I have been told that
by advocating the use of the authentic language of the origin of the person
and the knowledge in the writing of theses in the way that I have described
above, that I am 'lowering academic standards'. The ironies are exquisite,
particularly in the light of the fact that some of my most vehement critics
are monolingual and monocultural.
Another point that is raised here is the 'appropriate' and 'authentic' 'mode
of expression'. By 'mode of expression' I am referring to the use of spoken
expression, sung expression, moved expression, visual expression, musical
expression and so on .... This is particularly pertinent in the case of the
oral tradition and/of indigenous knowledge which is predominantly
conceptualized and recorded in memory, and expressed in performance. In
respect of the oral tradition, there are many instances where the knowledge
is conveyed by precise movement, by the use of a precise gesture, by the use
of a precise intonation. I am indebted to my ex-student and now colleague
teaching at the University of Abidjan, Dr Tra Bi Goh, for teaching me the
significance of tonal gestual languages, such as Gouro, Goh's mother tongue.
In African rural communities, this kind of language predominates. Goh showed
me how in Gouro each 'word' could have up to five different meanings
depending on the inflexion of the voice and the gesture that went with it.
How does one write this down? If one does indeed write this kind of
information down one has to resort to the use of movement notation for the
physical movement and sound notation for the movement of the voice. And the
research 'product' becomes so technical and specialized that it becomes
inaccessible. There have been attempts at using scribal alphabetic writing
to record the nuances of intonation, but none with any degree of success, or
generalisability. In a nutshell, writing these kinds of texts down is
impossible, as noted by John Miles Foley in a series of lectures which he
gave at the University of Natal, Durban in 1996, titled "The impossibility
of the oral canon." This issue was also addressed by Ted Chamberlin in his
keynote address of the fifth international conference on the oral tradition
in 1997 also at the University of Natal, Durban: "Doing things with words:
putting performance on the page." (1998, Voices 1.) I see this as another
example of the need for multiple perspectives, lenses and worldviews, if
research is going to be 'appropriate' and 'authentic'.
Also in this vein, I am mindful of the work of David Maracle, Mohawk scholar
at the University of Western Ontario, who has over the past three decades
made an indepth study of Mohawk and has created a form of pictographic
writing which accommodates the various forms of spoken Mohawk.
Yet further, it is important to bear in mind that both the physical and the
aural movement in the expression of oral traditional texts are critical to
its faithful memorial record, and memory is critical for memory is all that
the oral tradition has by way of truly 'authentic' record. All examples of
the need for multiple perspectives, lenses and worldviews if our research is
going to be 'appropriate' and 'authentic'.
So ... when we suggest that we use other than scribal alphabetic writing for
the record of scholarship for the award of senior degrees, I am told again
and again that theses 'must be written to be scholarly'. I argue that it is
'inappropriate' to require that the three dimensional dynamic performance of
knowledge be recorded in two inert dimensions, and I am told that I am
'lowering academic standards'. Once again, the ironies are exquisite,
particularly when some of my most vehement critics are people influenced
predominantly by the literate tradition.
And it is clear here why I am much encouraged by Jack's use and promotion of
multimedia in 'Living Theories Methodologies', which allow me to record some
small aspect of the vastness of the knowledge, something of the age-old
values, and multiple worldviews held in the oral traditions of knowledge
closest to me.
Which brings me to yet another important point that I choose to factor into
my work in this arena. I have found that it is detrimental to my work to
allow the perception that the orality-literacy interface is an 'us and them'
situation, a divided house. This is not so. I see that ALL human beings are
both oralate and literate in a flexible and constantly changing dynamic. I
believe that we benefit from becoming aware of both our oralate and literate
selves and operations. I believe that this kind of self-awareness heightens
my capacity to perceive the capacities in others, so that I can see when
someone understands the world differently from the way that I do, or I
understand the world differently from someone else. I take my lead in this
respect from Marcel Jousse (1886-1961). In a lecture at Ecole des Hautes
Etudes, Marcel Jousse records, in about 1940, "I am very happy to see the
emergence, universally, of civilizations which cannot be termed savage or
primitive, or any other such term. These are civilizations. We must not
attempt the impossibility of understanding them; instead we must understand
that we do not understand them, and that in itself will be a step towards
mutual appreciation which could develop into accord. Some twenty years ago,
I found myself on this very spot with someone we would term a Chinese
Mandarin, who told me "You are the first European I have met who understands
that you do not understand us." (Anthropology of Geste and Rhythm, 1997,
pp56/57.) Jousse was writing of an incident that took place in about 1920,
fully 90 years ago. That is almost a century ago. It is not unreasonable to
expect that we would have learned what we needed to know to create a
peaceful world by now. Clearly we have not. I am reminded again and again of
the value of "humble awareness" (identified in the work of Vinaver, by
Edgard Sienaert in his obituary) in the business that I am about. I find the
caution provided by the Criteria for Rigour which we developed in 2003
useful in this regard. And Self Study and Living Theories Methodologies a
boon and a blessing.
Thank you for listening ...
Joan
-----Original Message-----
From: Practitioner-Researcher
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner
(BU)
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
Dear Jack and Joan,
"I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of such criteria can be
part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use of language. I'll ask
him."
No way! I was writing in support of those criteria, especially with regard
to reflecting rigorously about the appropriateness of choice of verbal
language in relation to its intended meaning. I do notice that it is very
easy, in order to be 'accepted', to use language in a way that is not
appropriate to a transigent ('open') intention and hence to allow an
intransigent ('closed off') interpretation to hold sway. This is a big
problem when seeking liberation from over-definitive (absolutely
categorical, alienating) paradigms.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Whitehead" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
On 4 Apr 2010, at 13:18, Joan Lucy Conolly wrote:
> Dear Jack
>
> Here is the resend ... this is what Alan was referring to ...
>
> I hope that you get it this time.
> Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Joan - got it. I like the criteria for rigour - They will complement
Richard Winter's six criteria - the more individuals (and validation groups)
can focus on using these criteria the more they will help to enhance the
qualities of validity and rigour in the self-study/action research accounts.
I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of such criteria can be
part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use of language. I'll ask
him.
Just about to have a Sunday roast dinner - Rebecca and Simon have come round
and Rebecca is waiting, non too patiently for the arrival of her first
offspring!
Love Jack.
"This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click
http://www.dut.ac.za"
|
