The constitution of the Advisory Council

[Megan J. Crowhurst]

As a member of this list (and I guess, honestly as a facilitator as well),
I was surprised and disappointed at Chris's tone in the message he sent
to the list recently:

> I understand the desire to bridge the disagreements here, but this whole
> discussion is sounding more and more disagreeable, at best.  I think the
> reason is that the problematic parts are purely political in nature.  I
do
> not see how the two positions could be moved closer to a compromise
> without compromising the principles underlying them.

I deeply regret that the efforts of list members to design and incorporate
concrete measures to ensure the representation of nondominant perspectives
seems disagreeable. I interpret his (Chris's) message as being that we
wouldn't want to soil our hands with politics; I find it sad to see steps
taken to foster inclusiveness being denounced in perhaps overly strong
language as belonging in the "cesspool of politics". Make no mistake, the
let's-not-legislate-inclusiveness point of view also represents a
political stance.  That is, the suppression of (or more mildly,
consciously supporting the omission of) mechanisms to ensure the type of
representation we're talking about is *not* apolitical, it's consistent
with a different sort of political agenda. So, as long as we're all being
political, and as long as we can all still choose our politics, I'll opt
anytime for a system with built-in safeguards to facilitate
inclusiveness, however this is done.

The reasons why I support some means of ensuring the representation of
nondominant perspectives on the advisory committee have been set forth
with much greater eloquence than I can manage (no names here, but these
are all messages that have come through in the last few days).  But one
thing, perhaps, bears repeating: it has been suggested that categories
should not be included because we're all decent people and would ensure
that adequate representation is achieved anyway.  I think we'd all like to
believe this about ourselves, and I have no doubt that those who've taken
this stance (and I write this with much respect for those colleagues)
would feel themselves committed to doing exactly this.  But, my experience
has been that nondominant perspectives tend not to be heard unless
explicit, conscious, and consistent efforts are made by those with the
louder voice. We're all human, and even the most well-intentioned person
gets tired of making a strong, consistent effort time after time to do
something that doesn't come naturally (i.e. listen and fully hear a
different, maybe conflicting perspective).  And in any group, when a large
number of people who (to a greater or lesser extent) share a point of view
outnumber those present whose view differs, the people in the larger group
tend to collude, whether intentionally or inadvertently, in overriding the
softer voice. And, admit it, it is much easier to bend principles that are
not explicitly stated.  So I think the best way to ensure that the effort
*is* made is to set down specific and concrete guildelines that make what
we are doing conscious.  These guildelines aren't sacred, and there's no
reason why they couldn't be refined later on by a vote if it is found that
they aren't working.

The other thing is that if we want a variety of perspectives to be
represented at every level of this organization, we have to let those
different perspectives be represented by people who are authentically
capable of doing so (it's already been noted that identity politics are
problematic, but we don't have to fix that now). Members of dominant
groups who identify as liberal, however well-meaning, can't be entrusted
with the task of representing the perspective of, or protecting the
interests of members of non-dominant groups.  (For example, Chris Beckwith
who I'm responding to primarily and who has taken a highly active interest
in the development of this organisation, and we thank him for his
involvement, cannot accurately represent the perspective of a woman.)

The idea that "we don't need to write it in, but we'll respect the
difference" reminds me of events that have occurred in the push toward
standardising the Guarani language in Bolivia, where I do field work (when
I can get there). To make a long story short, there are three dialects
recongised as the main dialects of Guarani in Bolivia--Ava, Isocen~o, and
Simba.  The Ava are largely urbanised and have more resources than the
other two groups.  The three varieties are distinguished by clear
phonological and a few morphological differences, at least. When decisions
were made about how to write Bolivian Guarani, it was decidedin general to
represent features characteristic of Ava, when there is disagreement.  For
example, where Ava has a "ch" and Isocen~o has [s], it was decided to
spell "ch". "But", said the majority, "we'll all remember that our
Isocen~o friends say "s"."

Still Chris B.:
>
> The original proposal is to assign representatives for each of the
> selected identity categories, so that the
> person representing the category belongs to the category, presumably by
> self-definition.  (Is anyone really going to challenge a
> candidate's proclamation of a given identity, or is GALA going to set up
> 'litmus tests' for membership in the category?  Doesn't sound very
savory
> to me.)

It's not perfect, but we'd have to hope that the self-selection process is
largely successful and that someone like, say, me wouldn't feel justified
in attempting to represent an indigenous position. (I'm choosing this as
an extreme example--I am one 32th aboriginal Australian and was mainly
raised in Canada, so someone like me ought to feel pretty ridiculous about
claiming an authentic aboriginal identity.) Opening the door to the
possibility of someone trying to do this (and, yes, we know it's happened)
is a risk, but it's a fairly minor one, and I don't see that the solution
to the problem is to reject the "representative" proposal.

> The other proposal is to have a representative--theoretically
> anyone--for the 'interests' of each of these categories of people.
<snip, snip...>

Actually, I agree with Chris that this might be undesirable, but for
different reasons than his:  as Anna Livia recently, and maybe others have
said, it's possible for people's area of research to not match an identity
which they can authentically claim, so it's not clear that
representation-by-research-interest would still get us the diversity of
perspective that this organization requires (IMHO) to grow.  (We can't and
wouldn't want to merge the research interest and personal identity ideas
for the obvious reason that not all lesbians are working on lesbian
speech, not all Black Folk (a term Geneva Smitherman has used; is it any
better than "African American"?) are working on vernaculars usually
associated with Black Folk, and so on.

I don't really know what to say about the last part of Chris's message.
He refers disparagingly to the overly emotional stance he attributes to
some posters whose politics appear to displease him (this I infer, perhaps
incorrectly, from Chris's use of words such as "disagreeable" and
"unsavory", as well as the suggestion that base emotion has been gettin'
in the way and befuddlin' the issue). Perhaps I'm not alone in having
found in Chris's own message the overly emotional tone to which he has
objected in others (or perhaps this is not a sporting observation).  Only
two comments of substance: Chris's use of the term "apartheid" seemed to
me inappropriate (he's got the comparison wrong, and I found it offensive
because the carelessly flung reference seemed to trivialise what apartheid
was really all about), and secondly, the anger he expresses seems to be in
response to disagreement with his views expressed by other members of this
list have disagreed with him.  My understanding has been that the policy
of this list is that all members are free to express their opinions and
participate in the creation of this organisation and its structure on an
equal footing, and that we should not expect to be rebuked for this, but
rather, to be treated with courtesy and respect.

Anyway, it's late, and this is already too long.  But, this is basically
my plug and note in agreement with all those who've already articulated
the view that its important that we find a way of explicitly inviting and
ensuring the representation of a good variety of perspectives, among them
perspectives which are not always heard, at the highest level of this
organization.

Best,
Megan

`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Megan J. Crowhurst, Ph.D.		Tel:  919-962-1484
Department of Linguistics		Fax:  919-962-3708
The University of North Carolina	
318 Dey Hall 014A, CB # 3155		
Chapel Hill, NC  27599			
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`