Oh Dear...

I kind of wish I hadn't brought it up in the first place, now.

Though I do think that it has been an interesting and illustrative process reflecting some of our troubles in organising.

I was personally ok with taking action as a citizen, including adapting and signing my name to letters to various people, including those in the UK government, the Israeli government, and US representatives in Israel. I did that while the Israeli army was still in Gaza, and it seemed a purposeful, if somewhat insufficient protest.

I hear the arguement that signing our names to petitions may potentially make us vulnerable (anti-terrorism? really?), but I wonder about the fears of doing so from a position of relative safety in the UK, as compared with the positions of the people we are aiming to act in solidarity with? I guess if a serious anti-left military regime should emerge in the UK, many of us would be up against the wall for things we've written here and elsewhere anyway. In the mean time, perhaps I'm naieve thinking that I can go about writing letters and signing petitions without much risk of serious consequences. Even so - if I am unprepared to take such a theoretical risk from my position of considerable privilege, to what extent am I truly complicit in the abuses that occur? I suppose an additional comment to make here is that it's important to be sure that you would stand by what you are signing up to, and try to understand what the potential implications of your words might be. I think this is important in terms of the choice to opt in to any public statements we might make from here.

In terms of my intentions with the list, I wasn't necessarily seeking collective action, (although that seems to have happened as a result of my initial posts - excellent illustration of the unpredictable outcomes of our actions or 'interventions' in any system) but rather to generate an opportunity for thought and discussion in relation to action (personal or collective). I guess that has happened too. Although I agree that it's important not to remain silent, I don't feel I have personally remained silent, and equally, I don't feel that I've had much of a voice in the collective CPUK statement.

I share Rebekah's, David's and others' concerns about the process whereby our network seems to have made a public statement on behalf of the members (are we members?), most of whom appear to be always silent in this forum. Hence I think the 50% approach was destined to fail to offer a serious possibility to opt out or prevent action about which there were expressed reservations.

I wonder where we go from here?

I think it is very clear that there are multiple funcitons for this list, which perhaps should be clarified and seperated out. One is as a space to discuss, think, reflect, share ideas, debate, find solidarity etc - which I think has it's own value. Another is a forum for action, in which I think a sub-group of this network has more of an interest than the whole of the list.

Any suggestions?

Wendy

--- On Wed, 21/1/09, Rebekah Pratt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Rebekah Pratt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] petition/ from community psychologists?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 21 January, 2009, 1:12 PM

And don't forget Marks recently added fourth step ... Disregard any of that
and just send it anyway.
Not much incentive for engaging in a meaningful process of what it means to
make collective statements there!!  Or perhaps it is just beyond 'us'
after all.  The 50% objection process outlined by Mark and Paul (as Mark
described it) is not one I want to sign up to, and I don't see why signing
up to a mail discussion list means I now have.
Rebekah



-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Duckett
Sent: 21 January 2009 12:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] petition/ from community psychologists?

Also, it is not always safe for people to sign a petition. If you do not have
the social, political, cultural and economic resources to protect yourself from
highly litigious corporations and repressive laws (e.g., UK anti-terrorism
legislation). It is not always easy to speak up against a powerful interest
group, especially when it involves making your identity known to them when your
identity is low status to them.

It is not beyond us to come up with some rules and regs of how we express our
collective voice and our collective will and there are ways of using ICT to
allow people to vote anonymously for or against or abstain from a statement
being made anonymously. First step is to decide whether we want a collective
voice. Second step is to decide how we identify it (e.g., via consensus or
majority rule). Third step is to decide how we use it.

It is and was important for a statement of support to get sent to organisations
in Gaza, before they had all their bits blown off. 

p

Paul Duckett
Senior Lecturer
Community Psychology
Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology Manchester Metropolitan
University I am out fo the office on study leave from 2nd - 7th June
(inclusive). During this time I cannot be contacted by phone, but can be
contacted by e-mail. However, I will have limited e-mail access and there may
therefore be a delay until I can reply.

___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt
([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])