advisory council

[Mary Bucholtz]

Sara's proposal, coupled with Ingrid's additions, moves us closer to a
compromise between the two positions that have been presented so far. I
very much like the idea of focusing on what we do rather than who we are
(or are perceived to be). However, I think the potential for inadequate
representation is more likely at the level not of scholarship but of
identity, however we want to understand that notion. Since we can't assume
that people with certain identities will do certain kinds of scholarship,
there's a danger that in focusing on scholarship we won't be addressing the
problems that are most likely to arise: namely, overlooking the needs of
particular scholars who may not be adequately represented in the
organizational structure.

Several people have already given a very clear explanation for why the
facilitators and others have seen a need for constituency representation. I
can't add anything to their very eloquent arguments, so I just want to
underscore the point that most organizations do end up having some such
representation, but often as an outside, after-the-fact group (e.g., a
caucus) rather than as part of the basic structure. The original proposal
aims for explicit inclusivity from the very beginning of the organization.

Some people have argued strenuously, and on very persuasive theoretical
grounds, against constituency representation, and they're absolutely right
that identity categories are deeply problematic. However, as long as
sexuality, race, nationality, gender, and other fictive categories matter
in the world around us--a condition which is the very premise of our
scholarship, after all--they will matter in our organization. It would be
nice to think that if we don't acknowledge those categories, they won't
matter, but I fear that such a hope, though well-intentioned, isn't very
realistic.

Mary