This week was supposed to be "Speaking for" but we switched it around.
Consider the way you listen. That is what experiences are based on- where you are listening from. Actions and words line up to what you are listening for.
"Imagine what the world would look like if you could create what you are listening for." We did an exercise with a partner. Heidi spoke of a current irritation. I thought of what terms Dr. R had used the week before. Then I decided to just listen to Heidi. I made a few guessses. Then I said she was listening for approval, and she thought that was it! Then I spoke of the morning news- gang violence in LA, violence in Israel and Palestine, and my frustration that the gangs didn't wake up to the reality of violence in other places and how petty theirs is. Heidi made some guesses, I pushed her a little, and she said "hope." Ah, yes. That was what I was listening for.
However, a day later I started thinking about this. Heidi and I were working backwards. We were identifying what we wanted to hear, but now what we were actually listening for. Actually, I was listening for despair, and so that's what I was hearing. She was listening for disapproval, and so that is what she was hearing. While what we identified was helpful for us, it wasn't really what we were listening for.
One term that kept coming up was "Where are you listening from." But I don't think that was the point. I think the point is really to think about what you are hearing from the other. That is what you are listening for. If you want to change what you are hearing, change what you are listening for.
What's interesting about all of what we're learning is that I've been doing some of this at work in the past year.
"I create what I look for." This is why my students don't really make me angry with rude personal quesitons. I'm listening for learning- not disprespect. However, there are definitely some things I take as disrespect, and they may not mean it that way- speaking over other students, interupting, being noisy during tests, etc.
This makes me think about what I'm listening for with my children and my husband. Why does Leila frustrate me sometimes?
What am I listening for in my photography?
"Live your life as a speech act of creation. You say what is SO."
Dr. R. talked for a bit about paired opposites. There is no slave without a master, no maid without a mistress.
How come when people get married, then, the man stays a man and the woman becomes a wife?as in "I now pronounce you man and wife." What does that say about her position as subject? Or does it perhaps mean that he now becomes a man, but he wasn't before?
Monday, March 10, 2008
February 28 Recreation
What is recreation? Najendra says "assembling what is available and trying to go beyond." The difference between repetition and recreation? the first doesn't imply new direction or any thought.
Dr. R demonstrates:
"What makes you grumpy?" She asks Keith.
He talks about McD's and the children running around there like wild things.
Dr. R. listens, and speaks it back.
She apologizes as a human that he underwent that- making sure he knew she heard him.
She makes no judgement but speaks what he hasn't said- "languaging the unsaid"
"Wherever you are speaking from is where you are listening from," she says.
Najendra- "by recreating we say what is rendered unspeakable by existing grammar."
We are asked to describe what she has done. We try. She says she will show us again. Next up is intrepid Darcy.
"What are you grumpy about?"
"Lack of sleep."
"Can you tell me a particular incident?"
"This week."
"Say more."
Darcy speaks. When she stops, Dr. R asks if that is all, and waits. Darcy goes deeper. This happens several times. At the end Darcy is crying, but it is healing tears.
Dr. R tells her that she is wonderful. At this point, she steps out of the recreation to give Darcy some tools for making life bearable- make a list of all your problems so you can sleep, for example. "Writing something down gives your mind a place to put it." (This makes me wonder aobut illiterate people and cultures. Where do they get to put the things in their minds?)
I described this process as breakdown and buildup. Dr. R. had her go deep into what was going on. It was very therapuetic.
Dr. R outlined the process of Recreation for us.
1. Get permission- "May I?" "Would you be willing to say more?"
Make sure they know: You don't want anything from them, you are not a threat, there is no judgement.
2. Repeat back what they said, exactly the way they said it.
Give them permission go correct you. "GET their world."
3. Capture the emotional experience of that person.
"underneath anger is hurt". Listen and be there. Start to get their logic.
4. Background Commitment
What is this person's committment? (Keith's was that everyone was heard.) What is driving them? What makes this important in the first place?
Options: Clean things up if needed. Apologize. Ask if you can give an idea.
LEAVE THE PERSON WITH THE BEST OF THEMSELVES. (Himself or herself).
This was a very moving class. First, the courage of Keith and Darcy was immense. Darcy laid it all out for us, but I think there was a relief in knowing that we just cared about her.
I saw that I am quick to try to fix. I thought about a couple of weeks ago when someone came to talk to me about something that was bothering him, and I laid what I'd learned that week on him, but heavy. He should try treating that person in a new way, shifting his position so that she would have to shift hers. I could tell he didn't want to hear me. Then I felt like he was avoiding me. So after this class I called him and apologized that I hadn't just listened, that I had tried to fix.
Dr. R demonstrates:
"What makes you grumpy?" She asks Keith.
He talks about McD's and the children running around there like wild things.
Dr. R. listens, and speaks it back.
She apologizes as a human that he underwent that- making sure he knew she heard him.
She makes no judgement but speaks what he hasn't said- "languaging the unsaid"
"Wherever you are speaking from is where you are listening from," she says.
Najendra- "by recreating we say what is rendered unspeakable by existing grammar."
We are asked to describe what she has done. We try. She says she will show us again. Next up is intrepid Darcy.
"What are you grumpy about?"
"Lack of sleep."
"Can you tell me a particular incident?"
"This week."
"Say more."
Darcy speaks. When she stops, Dr. R asks if that is all, and waits. Darcy goes deeper. This happens several times. At the end Darcy is crying, but it is healing tears.
Dr. R tells her that she is wonderful. At this point, she steps out of the recreation to give Darcy some tools for making life bearable- make a list of all your problems so you can sleep, for example. "Writing something down gives your mind a place to put it." (This makes me wonder aobut illiterate people and cultures. Where do they get to put the things in their minds?)
I described this process as breakdown and buildup. Dr. R. had her go deep into what was going on. It was very therapuetic.
Dr. R outlined the process of Recreation for us.
1. Get permission- "May I?" "Would you be willing to say more?"
Make sure they know: You don't want anything from them, you are not a threat, there is no judgement.
2. Repeat back what they said, exactly the way they said it.
Give them permission go correct you. "GET their world."
3. Capture the emotional experience of that person.
"underneath anger is hurt". Listen and be there. Start to get their logic.
4. Background Commitment
What is this person's committment? (Keith's was that everyone was heard.) What is driving them? What makes this important in the first place?
Options: Clean things up if needed. Apologize. Ask if you can give an idea.
LEAVE THE PERSON WITH THE BEST OF THEMSELVES. (Himself or herself).
This was a very moving class. First, the courage of Keith and Darcy was immense. Darcy laid it all out for us, but I think there was a relief in knowing that we just cared about her.
I saw that I am quick to try to fix. I thought about a couple of weeks ago when someone came to talk to me about something that was bothering him, and I laid what I'd learned that week on him, but heavy. He should try treating that person in a new way, shifting his position so that she would have to shift hers. I could tell he didn't want to hear me. Then I felt like he was avoiding me. So after this class I called him and apologized that I hadn't just listened, that I had tried to fix.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Kristeva
On page 297
Kirsteva says that not only do women inhabit various subject positions, but "a new symobolic space and new subject position is open itself up for them." (Hmmm. Opening itself up? Or being opened by them. Agency!)
This new generation of feminists "seek to reconcile the linear time of history and politics with the cyclical gestation time of motherhood." They are trying to "intermingle motherhood (and difference) with the politics of equality and the symbolic order."
So, dissertation idea- get pregnant, and have a baby.
I'm already a mother, but in many ways I am not because I have to live within these two different spaces- professional woman and mother. While the first impedes often on the second (and is expected to) the second is not supposed to interfere with the first. However, some women do this by taking baby with them to professional arenas, breastfeeding in meetings, and the like.
My doctoral defence would require breastfeeding the child during the defense itself, or, at a minimum, bringing the child, in fact, all three children, with me to the defense.
Kirsteva says that not only do women inhabit various subject positions, but "a new symobolic space and new subject position is open itself up for them." (Hmmm. Opening itself up? Or being opened by them. Agency!)
This new generation of feminists "seek to reconcile the linear time of history and politics with the cyclical gestation time of motherhood." They are trying to "intermingle motherhood (and difference) with the politics of equality and the symbolic order."
So, dissertation idea- get pregnant, and have a baby.
I'm already a mother, but in many ways I am not because I have to live within these two different spaces- professional woman and mother. While the first impedes often on the second (and is expected to) the second is not supposed to interfere with the first. However, some women do this by taking baby with them to professional arenas, breastfeeding in meetings, and the like.
My doctoral defence would require breastfeeding the child during the defense itself, or, at a minimum, bringing the child, in fact, all three children, with me to the defense.
Foucalt and subjectivity
This is starting to make some sense.
In some cultures people deny that homosexuality exists, and, though they are aware of homosexual practices, they do not define the practioners (or at least one of them) as homosexual. (the other one may be "gay" or "a woman.")Other times it is simply ignored. This refusing to recognize homosexuals means that they have no ability "to be heard and to claim rights." (p. 291). They are not given "subject" status in the culture; therefore, they do not exist with the ability to perform actions. If only the subject can only be spoken by others (discourse production) than they are forever condemned to discursive limbo. However, if a subject has "agency" and can situate himself in the discourse, than he can create his own subjectivity. That is what has happened in the west, culminating in gay pride parades and the like, the ultimate in subjects seizing agency.
Some cultures do this with women, hiding them away from outside viewers, and not even speaking of them outside the home. The women may have the power to subjectize themselves inside the family unit and the home, but not in the outside arenas of politics and the labor market.
In some cultures people deny that homosexuality exists, and, though they are aware of homosexual practices, they do not define the practioners (or at least one of them) as homosexual. (the other one may be "gay" or "a woman.")Other times it is simply ignored. This refusing to recognize homosexuals means that they have no ability "to be heard and to claim rights." (p. 291). They are not given "subject" status in the culture; therefore, they do not exist with the ability to perform actions. If only the subject can only be spoken by others (discourse production) than they are forever condemned to discursive limbo. However, if a subject has "agency" and can situate himself in the discourse, than he can create his own subjectivity. That is what has happened in the west, culminating in gay pride parades and the like, the ultimate in subjects seizing agency.
Some cultures do this with women, hiding them away from outside viewers, and not even speaking of them outside the home. The women may have the power to subjectize themselves inside the family unit and the home, but not in the outside arenas of politics and the labor market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)