[Ethnocomm] e-seminar: a response from Tamar Katriel

[Stephanie Jo Kent]

Hello again everyone,

Katherine (Katie) Peters wrote, "I think that it's important to see and
study how communication technologies can divide communities as they bring
them together" (email Feb 12, 2016). She goes on to describe her research
findings:

The software this organization chose to use both enabled the presence of
distant members and constrained the (inter)actions they could accomplish,
like joking, which people who were also meeting face-to-face could do.
Furthermore, the possibilities for acting also affected how members could
relate to each other. For this organization, technology not only shaped the
process of meeting, but also subsequently shaped culture and meanings.

Being interdisciplinary (to me) means not only working across/among
different disciplines, it means making extrapolations that may not fit
within the Kuhnian "normal science" conditions of EC (or any other
methodology). For instance, Katie's example of software is analogous to my
object of study (simultaneous interpreting); its the comparison between her
site and mine where encodings become palpable to investigation at both
levels of (static) structure and the emergent (temporal) cultural/social.
What I (think I) did in my dissertation is to (as Tamar summarized Gerry's
suggestion) "map out specific articulations of [a specific] time-related
cultural and discursive node" (email attachment Feb 17, 2016). Think of the
interpreter as "an app" -- all the 'lessons' of software now, e.g, "the
materiality and fast-pacing of our current communication environment"
(Tamar Feb 17) are foreshadowed by the demands and expectations put on
interpreters to perform as an extension of the transmission technology with
its amazing channel switching capacity.

I'm thankful to Wendy's invitation to debrief and don't necessarily see it
as *needing* to be a separate process from wrapping up the e-seminar using
Tamar's summary as the centripetal discursive point. Depending upon how
reflexive we want to be, we could examine our own code, based upon a model
(mentioned a few times), familiarity with how listservs function generally,
and the biases/predispositions of EC-tuned examination. I mention this now
because it is my intuition that only in coming to grips with our own
unfoldings can we build authority in diagnosing temporal processes in
motion for research subjects. From my perspective, the conversation over
the course of the e-seminar keeps veering away from time to more static
objects for analysis, but I recognize this is a highly-situated
perspective! The point is that our own interaction also has the
characteristics of which we discuss :)

Encoding and entextualization are similar concepts (per Wendy and picked up
by Tamar) but I believe they refer to different temporal 'directions'? I
have understood entextualization as a kind of container, a pre-packaging
that gets reified through repetition, even sometimes despite variations. It
is that which comes from 'before.' The relationship with agency is that
those who comprehend and orient to the entextualizations popularized or
hierarchize by the institutional context are most likely to achieve voice
(Blommaert's 2004 definition), basically because they are playing the game
on the game's terms. This structuration (Giddens, 1984) can have disastrous
effects for anyone who fails or for any reason chooses not to play by those
terms. Entextualization is more fluid and more ephemeral than encoding...it
occurs on a range from intuitive practical consciousness to deliberate
discursive consciousness (Giddens 1979).

{Geez, I'm really going out there!}

Tamar, I don't see the parallel in the logic of Hymes' choice of
"communication" over "speaking" with elevating encoding over
entextualization. What I see instead is encoding having a more future
thrust, intentional or from sheer survival needs. Entextualization is (as a
human activity). . . a bit conservative, casting backwards, a kind of
support for the 'status quo.' Encoding can be more horizontal--seeking
support laterally rather than on past-precedent. My words feel far from
adequate, underlining Tamar's point that we "need...an analytic language
that can encompass technological change." As I'm writing, I can imagine
someone arguing that entextualization allows for contemporary reaching, too
(rather than legacy reaching)....perhaps the real issue is that *here* is
the point of contention: the contest between past and future playing out in
present interactions. Again, Tamar said something similar: "the focus on
encoding...locates...established codes, within an ongoing process in which
socially meaningful forms and patterns are forever made and remade, forever
in flux (a process of *semiosis* in semiotic parlance)." What's been
missing from EC is that the codes have been treated as stand-alone objects
with essentially impermeable boundaries. Finally (from a critical
perspective), there's recognition that codes are not so singularly extant.

Also, I want to share with everyone this special *Nature* issue on
Interdisciplinarity <http://www.nature.com/news/interdisciplinarity-1.18295>.
The editorial states: "Most scientists are aware of the term, and many will
have used it. But how many are truly engaged in it? Done correctly, it is
not mere multidisciplinary work — a collection of people tackling a problem
using their specific skills — but a synthesis of different approaches into
something unique."

This is why I referenced Kuhn and normal science above. Like every
intellectual in any era, we know we live in interesting times. But there
are stakes now that eclipse all that have preceded us. These are
extraordinary times. Many of you have extraordinary skills. To what ends
are they being used?  I deeply appreciate the steady application and
development of craft. EC is an amazing tool and you are excellent
practitioners. I am grateful to be a member of this list!

best regards,
steph


References:

Blommaert, J. (2004). Discourse: A critical introduction. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure,
and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of
structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Peters, K. (2015). “Showing we’re a team”: Acting and relating in
online/offline hybrid organizational meetings. In T. Milburn, Communicating
user experience: Applying local strategies research to digital media design
(pp. 63-86). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Nature Publishing Group.(17 September 2015). "Mind meld." Nature 525,
289–290.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ethnocomm/attachments/20160218/dc4f8948/attachment.htm>