 |
 |
Dear Alon (and all), I very much agree with you about engaging in dialogue rather than making propositional assertions. I think your description of the requirements of dialog is lovely and very clear. I also agree that conducting real dialog can be extremely difficult. From my own perspective a major difficulty lies in the fact that it is much easier to correct others than to admit my own mistakes or, for that matter, admit to an imperfect understanding. I am getting better at this, I think. I once took a course in which the term 'speaking to another's listening' was used a lot. (At first I thought it was just American jargon! Then I began to understand it.) I still try to do this but I'm far from proficient; it takes work to speak to another's listening rather than to the listening that *I* want them to have! Even harder, for me, is developing my own 'listening' for someone else's 'speaking'. (I will assume that the meaning conveys itself and won't bore you by unpicking it!) The same course also explored the human addiction to being right and turned it upside down by insisting that, in each conflict of ideas the participants looked only and entirely for their own 'stake-holdings' in being right... and then abandoned them. (This did not mean agreeing with the other person or abandoning any truth - only abandoning the need to be convince the other of your own rightness - and even more importantly, of the other's wrongness. It was a fine but profound distinction.) That feels incredibly counter-intuitive - especially when it seems obvious that other is wrong! But the point was, and is, that the direction of the dialog then moved away from 'convincing' to genuinely understanding the other viewpoint and, if necessary accepting disagreement. I tend to do quite poorly at that, by the way! (I should add that this approach by no means precludes acting upon one's own convictions. I have, for instance, more than one friend who is anti-union. We have shared our perspectives and exchanged arguments... and remain in our original positions. This weekend, I have been helping with union organization. I will do what is necessary to empower my union so that it is in a position of strength to negotiate on behalf of the exploited workers on my campus. My friends may feel moved to do the opposite. That will be challenging for us but I am committed to my affection for them *and* to maintaining our friendship.) One of the things that emerged from this process, for me, was that I have become aware of the danger inherent in dialogues where one or both parties have no 'listening' for the other. When that happens, the conversation moves from inquiry and exploration to a kind of sparring match and, when there are others present it can easily become a kind of 'exhibition match' with the underlying object of establishing a 'winner' who is 'right'. Alon, I am very clear that I have failed to speak to or listen from where you actually are. I have directed my posts to the place I *thought* you were in - and missed! I am so far out of alignment with you, that I can't relate your replies to the reflections that I am making. I'm sorry about that. But if I continue with this, knowing that I simply do not have the required listening for the space you occupy, I won't be conversing with you but sparring and I don't want to do that. So let me simply say these things and be done: For the reasons that I have given, I agree with Jack and others that there is something that cannot live in the written word but which can be touched - however imperfectly - through the medium of video; for the same reasons I wholly disagree that this same energy can be experienced in written words but *not* through film; I accept that you do not agree with me; I do not accept, but do not want to argue further, the analogy of a film of you vomiting; *I* cannot define your feelings about racism, feelings to which I relate, as ontological because I am pedantic about language and they aren't part of an inquiry but of a state; *however*, I unconditionally accept that they are part of who you choose to be; I share your sense of outrage at whatever you perceive as oppressive, dehumanizing and unjust and I share your need to say loudly and clearly, 'that is wrong'! So far as doing the latter is concerned, I offer one observation from a fellow 'opposer'! I also accept the penalty for opposition, which is to make opponents of those engaged in the practice I have rejected, just as I must accept the polarizing/conflictual dynamic which inevitably follows. (The same holds true, of course for those 'lesser wrongs' we might think we perceive and criticize.) In other words, when we take an adversarial position we are responsible, indeed we ourselves have chosen, the opposition we are likely to meet. We can accept and be accountable for this if we choose, or we can blame the deficiency in ourselves, others or the human condition and its capacity for real dialog. Personally, when I stand in opposition to anything now, I do not see the resistance and rejection I *inevitably* meet as any kind of deficiency, but as the operation of a natural law whose consequences are inherent in my own choices. I find that empowering, however much I hate it or however difficult my situation. It may or may not seem useful to you. Again, I am sorry for my failure to connect with you and I gladly leave you with the last word. love Sara "I have come to a frightening conclusion. I am the decisive element in the classroom. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather... I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal." Haim Ginott ________________________________________ From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alon Serper [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:16 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: How to establish an environment that calls out the most and the best of everyone RE-How often has someone 'picked it up the wrong way'. You check this. You ask the hearer/reader to clarify back what he/she understood or better yet, you see what he/she has understood from the reply. If he/she is wrong about what you said, you gently correct him/her. The important thing is to engage and dialogue rather than make linguistic propositional assertions. This is what a conversation is all about, checking how your meanings are being understood and adding to them. Whilst doing so, you reflect both individually and as group collaboration. You admit mistakes and are open, authentic, humble and engaging. It is an art that is very worthwhile mastering. But as Gadamer and Collingwood pointed out, we are not ready for it. Had we were, I would not have had that much problem with finding academic hosts for my post-propositional critical psychology postdoc. I worked very hard at it over the last decade. I am checking it and doing it now. Alon Quoting Deirdre Flood <[log in to unmask]>: > Hi Alon > > Thank-you for your response because I've remembered that I've taken > something for granted in my own experience in using video with the group I > am involved with in Special Olympics that I first noticed at the beginning. > > You are absolutely right that people do not behave naturally and > authentically when filmed when the camera is something that you point at > them for the first time or even a couple of times. > > However, I've been using video on a sustained basis over a period of a year > with my group in a fully informed and ethical way with consent from everyone > including the athletes themselves. In fact I was able to use video to > communicate to the athletes what I was trying to accomplish with that group > which involved the production of a training video for volunteers. The use > of video assisted me in delivering a multimedia form of my ethics statement > precisely because the concern was that some athletes would have difficulty > comprehending my plain language ethics statement. > > What I found is that over time, the camera became a norm in this environment > and was literally ignored thereby granting me what I believe was an > authentic and natural point of view through the lens of the camera. I could > validate this because I knew the group for four years before I introduced > the camera and could relate to what normal behaviour looked like. Also > because I am part of the group there is a trusting relationship already > established and therefore the space is safe because I have control over that > recording material and it certainly would not be published without due > consideration on the internet. > > I think that this reservation or consideration thats given to what is > published on the internet in visual form is an acknowledgement of the power > of the medium itself. We all have no problem communicating across an open > forum using email and our words will remain out there forever just the > same. However the weight in this principle when applied to a visual > expression of ourselves is really not the same because we are communicating > more than just words. > > Showing clips of ourselves out of context absolutely can be a disaster and > damaging but so too can words when taken selectively or edited from > a narrative of text. That is why I believe its so important to integrate > the two together to assist in making the context clear which I think can be > done through the way a person approaches their research and the values > they espouse. > > I used an online blog to record my reflective journals on my experience and > I found the process to be a fantastic way to express my thoughts and > reflections which came in a flow of writing. Making sense of it later is a > whole other story though! However if I had to make a video diary I would > not have worked for me in the same way.. I would have been thinking about > what I looked like not what I was saying. I therefore value writing and > the written dialectic because I'm focused on the words and their meanings > and sometimes it provides a less complicated frame of reference because > there are no other signals confusing my interpretation. However equally > sometimes those additional signals are very helpful as it can be difficult > to communicate emotion over email for example. How often has someone > 'picked it up the wrong way'. > > For me I guess the context is key and I agree that a therapeutic environment > would lend itself to writing and blogging and using video in a very safe > space so with an understanding of your context I know where you are coming > from. > > I just think there is a place for video and multimedia forms in research in > a blended approach in general and particularly Living educational theory. > > I look forward to reading about the influences in your research Alon. > > Take care > Best Regards > Deirdre > >