So the more things change, the more they stay the same. (Not! Hopefully not!)
Feminist theory is one touchstone for me in work on environmental science and discourse. Currently on my desk for that are notes from Marilyn French's 1986 feminist classic, "Beyond Power." Maybe I'll get back to that from this lovely fun break to check email (and thus LJ) by sharing this incredible parallel.
Twenty years old and it's still so relevant:
Feminism is not [simply about] access to existing structures and their rewards. This is how many people see it, however: as a strictly political movement through which women demand entry into the "male" world, a share of male prerogatives, and the chance to be like men. This perception of feminism alienates many nonfeminist women.
Not to mention feminist ones too! Like me. Whether it's feminism vs patriarchy, "fanboy vs. fangirl," blog vs. LJ (IJ/GJ etc), "media fandom" vs. stabbity*hate*that*name, OTW "owners" vs fandom "users," I follow French's call to change the relations, not just the owners or their gender. Change the dualism - and not into monotonous all-the-same-ism, either.
Let me change "feminism" to "fandom," as French continues, to underscore the striking parallels to one wonderful debate OTW's start-up has started up (because debates are wonderful! like OTW!) -- the question of how transformative OTW is really meant to be. Will OTW be politically advantageous for some, or the many? Will OTW transform how fandom is viewed -- even, how society views itself? -- or just how some fandom scholars, fanartists, or BNFs are viewed? Where French wrote this for "feminists" or "feminism," I'll change it to fandom:
[Fandom] is a political movement demanding access to the rewards and responsibilities of the "male" [mainstream corporate ownership-of-text] world.
[This absolutely includes the highly conservative, power-world of academia!]
It is more: it is a revolutionary moral movement, intending to use political power to transform society, to "[fandomize]" it. For such a movement, assimilation is death. The assimiliation of [fans] to society as it presently exists would lead simply to the inclusion of certain women/fans (not all, because society as it presently exists is highly stratified) along with certain men [male fans/academics] in its higher echelons.
It would mean continued stratification and continued contempt for "[fandom]" values. Assimilation would be the cooption of [fandom]. Yet it must be admitted that the major success of the movement in the past twenty years [past summer's fandebate?] has been to increase the assimilation of [academic fans] into the existing structure. This is not to be deplored, but it is only a necessary first step.
Some would disagree with French's last sentence. What strikes me is how well her critique applies to fandom's efforts to gain not only a similar social parity, but beyond that, to "transform" the society that so automatically defaults to DIS-parity.
I assume, however, that the collective and very bright minds in OTW's 'management' have noted that yes, even such a small (?!) thing as the journal's comment function can be as transformative as the work OTW supports, or can simply default into the structures of control that already exist to suppress fandom, feminism, and other social movements for new forms of col/laboration.
I feel sure that at least some of you in OTW will do your best to make the journal and its comments as supportive to wide-open conversation as you can. What a grand experiment in so many ways! Those of us who use CMC for teaching, for team-based widely-based research, for institutional governance and for public participation work (yes, some of us bravely fight to make even the current US government more publicly responsive and accountable) will find this journal not only a source of information and great pride -- but an additional case study in the global struggle for peaceful and productive multivocality.
Amusing: Plus ca change ... .
Feminist theory is one touchstone for me in work on environmental science and discourse. Currently on my desk for that are notes from Marilyn French's 1986 feminist classic, "Beyond Power." Maybe I'll get back to that from this lovely fun break to check email (and thus LJ) by sharing this incredible parallel.
Twenty years old and it's still so relevant:
Not to mention feminist ones too! Like me. Whether it's feminism vs patriarchy, "fanboy vs. fangirl," blog vs. LJ (IJ/GJ etc), "media fandom" vs. stabbity*hate*that*name, OTW "owners" vs fandom "users," I follow French's call to change the relations, not just the owners or their gender. Change the dualism - and not into monotonous all-the-same-ism, either.
Let me change "feminism" to "fandom," as French continues, to underscore the striking parallels to one wonderful debate OTW's start-up has started up (because debates are wonderful! like OTW!) -- the question of how transformative OTW is really meant to be. Will OTW be politically advantageous for some, or the many? Will OTW transform how fandom is viewed -- even, how society views itself? -- or just how some fandom scholars, fanartists, or BNFs are viewed? Where French wrote this for "feminists" or "feminism," I'll change it to fandom:
Some would disagree with French's last sentence. What strikes me is how well her critique applies to fandom's efforts to gain not only a similar social parity, but beyond that, to "transform" the society that so automatically defaults to DIS-parity.
I assume, however, that the collective and very bright minds in OTW's 'management' have noted that yes, even such a small (?!) thing as the journal's comment function can be as transformative as the work OTW supports, or can simply default into the structures of control that already exist to suppress fandom, feminism, and other social movements for new forms of col/laboration.
I feel sure that at least some of you in OTW will do your best to make the journal and its comments as supportive to wide-open conversation as you can. What a grand experiment in so many ways! Those of us who use CMC for teaching, for team-based widely-based research, for institutional governance and for public participation work (yes, some of us bravely fight to make even the current US government more publicly responsive and accountable) will find this journal not only a source of information and great pride -- but an additional case study in the global struggle for peaceful and productive multivocality.
Whee!