 |
 |
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