 |
 |
Hi Alon and Everyone Speaking personally, what inspires me about being a practitioner engaged in research with others and 'living autonomously while nurturing community' might be my definition of con-viviality - is the prevalence of good. Yes, there is inhumanity, there is isolation and exclusion but for most of us most of the time I see a valuing of trust in/reliance on others. It leads me to ponder, should we be ready to take responsibility to confront inhumanity, not keep quiet hoping it won't affect us? If we genuinely want to discuss the lives we lead as researchers shouldn't we account for not just what we know to be good but also what we know harms, not to enjoy blaming but to improve life? e.g. I haven't seen email in this discussion confronting a virulent problem of bullying in Academe. Do we confront the culture of Academe that can favour a self-interested, over-competitive spirit? I very much liked the posting a couple of days ago about the one email that might express what others haven't got round to saying and/or which usefully challenges norms. When I write about standards of judgement on this list it is with that aim. Should we be tending to discuss only the ideal in standards? I value Alon's postings. They can chill me to the bone but they are expressed with stark honesty; not a fluffy_bunny_isn't_it_wonderful_how_I_only_embody_love_and_inclusion? manner where I think Shall I challenge? Shall I hold that person accountable? I am questioning how possible it is through email to hold someone to account without injuring. I wouldn't want to do so. Warm regards to All Sarah