listening and being heard

"But speaking depends on listening and being heard; it is an intensely relational act." - Carol Gilligan

This post got started by a reading a tweet that got repeated. An interesting aspect of voice that it found resonance here :)
and will resonate elsewhere- in the thesis- but here's the roughish notes - there's a problem in writing a thesis when your mind is two chapters ahead of where you are currently writing...

But it took me on a search of google and back to Carol Gilligan's In a different voice, and I do love being able to read the pages provided by publishers.

In her writing she talked of not being heard when working in the 70's 1970s (on moral development with Kohlberg). A bit like an idea born before its time but also having different voice that just wasnt out there yet.
Now this 'resonated' with me because i had just been talking of moral development and of different voice relating a very poorly executed rendition of Gilligans critique with students last week. I had been looking at adolescence and had ditched the textbook (Berk) for its lack of respect for difference: "Delinquency peaks in adolescence" and opted instead for a New Zealand text, (see ref below)
given that many/most/almost all teenagers live lives with integrity, intelligence and good common sense. To quote Claiborne and drewery:

"Perhaps we might celebrate the competence of young people instead, as a ‘work in progress’ more in need of extension than colaapsing down to their being no cure but aging."Claiborne & Drewery (2010)

In Gilligan's writing was a fuller picture to 'seeing difference not as deviance but as a marker of the human condition'.

She says she moved away from relativism to relationship. i take this to mean a movement away from 'this is my position this is what i see, and from your position you will see it differently'; to relationship, 'this is my experience, my reality is different to your'. For myself, this suggests an ANT analysis; reals are made in relationship.

On being asked what is voice she says:

By voice I mean voice. Listen I will say, thinking that on one sense the answer is simple. it is simple. And then i will remember how it felt to speak when there was no resonance, how it felt when i began writing, how it still is for many people, how it still is for me sometimes. To have a voice is to be human. To have something to say is to be a person. But speaking depends on listening and being heard; it is an intensely relational act. (p.xvi)

Hauntingly familiar is when those spoken about have no voice, are not heard.
(Tis always a good question; whose voice is being heard.)

Often repeated is that teens are tethered to their phones (Turkle) but it is not teens who are describing it this way.
And in my data collect on youth counselling there were counsellors saying that young people would manipulate them into conversing by text instead of by calling. 20% of all texts coming in were loud and clear, for example: 'if i wanted to call i effing would have', and 'cnt i jus txt coz i don wanna be heard'.
The 'voice' moved to a different medium, it wasnt that relating wasnt wanted. On moving into this medium with young people, relating is enacted.
It connects inner and outer worlds.
To not listen is to deny the choice to relate.

"To give up their voice is to give up on relationship and also to give up on all that goes with making a choice."(xvii)

To choose not to relate in the spaces young people were/are choosing for counselling would be offensive twice over, first for not listening and secondly for disempowering choice.

Carol Gilligan further expands on what it means to have voice:

When people ask me what I mean by voice and I think of the question more reflexively, I say that by voice I mean something like what people mean when they speak of the core of the self.

It is the relational that is mediated by speech, it can also be mediated in print form; while voice in the digitally texted space of SMS messaging being used for txt counselling, is not part of a seen and heard experience of breath and sound in a rhythm of speech, this does not alter that breathing and being heard continues, that an intensely relational act is occurring.
And the costs of detachment are too great to think otherwise.

Reference
Claiborne, L. and Drewery, W. (2010) Human development; Family, place, culture. Auckland: NZ. McGraw-Hill.
Gilligan, C. (1993). Letters to readers In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scientifiction; Buffy meets Edward Cullen

Once upon a time i was worried about my daughters lack of familiarity with books, and then she introduced me to fanfiction and i realised she was writing as well as reading, it was just not reading and writing as i knew it.
Fanfiction appropriates characters from fiction and creates new stories and/or remixes the possibilities of old. In some ways its not new; not too different from writers who once they have a successful plot, repeat it with new characters, or where they rework the plots of classic works into new tales. What is new is the web 2.0 capacity for sharing such tales and comparing and contrasting what's made, the reach extends well beyond a few friends.Its a lot more visible, and there's talk of copyright infringement.
I am looking at Bruno Latour's use of the genre he names scientifiction, the genre he names in writing Aramis or the love of technology. In this he fuses science, sociology, fact and fiction. The fusing bypasses the tendency to put this and that together to suggest a whole. Instead this and that were never as separate as
Here is a youtube equivalent of fanfiction with a remix of Buffy, Edward Cullen and a little bit of Harry Potter The author, Jonathon McIntosh of rebelliouspixels.com, describes it as a profeminist visual critique of Edward’s character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy’s eyes some of the more patriarchal gender roles and sexist Hollywood tropes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed in hilarious ways.


I like Aramis, but this is more palpably, visually, edgy.
I like Turkle's evocative objects, things we think with, and note that the medium creates a provocation that's got further reach than academic texts.

I'm hoping I can create an edgy thesis with a writing style combining, almost all, of the above ;)

Texting is not talking

Seems to be stating the literal truth in the headline, but I have to disagree with Sherry Turkle regarding other judgments reported in this editorial. They are not the findings of my doctoral studies into emergent technologies and texting in a youth counselling centre.

I respect Sherry Turkle, I enjoyed her writing in the Second self, Life on the screen, and two blogs were developed in response to readingEvocative objects; Things we think with. One of these regarding my own thinking and use of a mobile. She asks really important questions of how we relate with technologies and how these relate with us.
I agree with her statement in 'Who am we'
"Life on the screen tells how the computer profoundly shapes our ways of thinking and feeling, how ideas carried by technology are reshaped by people for their own purposes, how computers are not just changing our lives but ourselves." And would concur that texting also has an impact. But in this editorial that reports on texting, I think some further considerations are needed.

She is cited saying teenagers' texting habit is slowing their emotional growth.
And an example is provided:
"Years ago, if I saw a kid who talked to his mother 20 times a day, I would say he has an attachment problem," notes Turkle. "Now I interview hordes of college juniors and seniors who routinely text their moms while they're waiting at the bus."
The judgment made is that there is a lack of independence from parents meaning teens are not learning to make decisions on their own.

I think this is a bit harsh, there are many many other factors involved...teenagers seem to have developed a different means of relating; what we have are increased interactions between young people and responsible adults, mum, dad. Please note, such a relationship only works if both parties are involved. However, to have 20 sentences exchanged, really its nothing. Most of us can do that in 10 minutes of conversation. I'm hoping that Sherry Turkle is not implying that talking with a parent for 10 mins a day is either bad for young people or different to a past. The data reported would not support this, its not a longitudinal study. I'm yet to be convinced by the evidence provided that multiple interactions (20) with a parent can be construed as bad, what it is is visibly different.

The article then identifies that there is worse yet as there are opportunity costs: Time teens spend texting is time that they don't socialize face-to-face. With more frequent electronic communication, teens give up real intimacy for the illusion of companionship. "The pressures of communicating at that velocity mean certain things aren't said," notes Turkle. "They need to have other places to have these important conversations."

Again, some further detail would add to a more informed discussion. Here i have some contradictions with my own data. The mobile phone makes it more possible to meet up, not less. What they are not doing, that Dr Turkle's generation probably did, is waiting at home for the phone to ring, waiting for *him* to call, that truly was an isolating act, disempowering even.

The telephone counselling agency I am working with has multiple stories of how its 'easier' to text, but it's worth thinking about how some of the conversations would never of occurred otherwise. The medium provides a portal for what's 'too hard to hear', even by the 'speaker'.

In the types of messaging I have been analysing, such as 'cn i jus txt coz i don wanna b heard' there's a lot going on.
It may be literal, there is the vignette of a young person hiding under the house to avoid a beating...
But its also about acknowledging stuff that can be really difficult to ask for help on. Not everyone was born confidant and well adjusted, some of us spent years learning how to relate. For the counselling agency I work with, the step of texting progresses and there is evidence that it can precede calling or coming in. There is also evidence that a deep conversation can be sustained using a texting medium, that it can be the sole means for counselling a young person through a crisis.

In New Zealand, the Broadcasting Authority release research on the 6th May 2007 indicating 42% of children 6-13 years use a mobile phone. I suspect they also use landlines but thats not news worthy. The threats associated with use are often reported in ways suggesting or promoting moral panic. The concerns raised are the same ones talked of by Carolyn Marvin (1988), in her book titled "When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century." The advent of the telephone (the landline) was going to ruin young womens' minds, they would spend so much time prattling nonsense or giggling inanely, it would lead to the death of the family unit. Nonetheless such technologies evolved with no great moral decline and now, we have more mobile phones than people in many OECD countries and far from being indicative of emotional detriment what is suggested are influences desirable to many of us. That we have approximately 50% saturation of phones to people worldwide suggests value. And mobile phones are so common as a means of communicating that they are now the third most likely item to be picked up before leaving the house third only to keys and a wallet.

Texting has become the preferred medium for young people, but reasons for this are worth exploring, especially if there is a supposition that things could or should be different.

For young people of limited financial means, texting on the mobile is often cheaper than talking. There's also the marketing messages that makes out you've got your best mate in your pocket (vodafone) or that it's the way of the future (telecom), anywhere, anytime. Such messages push the dream that we are always wanted and can always have those we want held close. In addition, my mobile isnt only a phone or a text capable message bearer, it also functions as a message pad, appointment diary, alarm clock, even a torch. For others I see that it also functions as gaming devices, music and entertainment systems, even gps roaming to see where the friends are to catch up. Seeing the apparent silent use at a bus stop etc does not equate with texting occurring though its very usefulness and portability does lead to it being used and to its being visibly used. Having something to do with your hands while sitting around in a public place trying to feel cool or inconspicuous may be reflected in apparent texting but alot more could be going on such as 'freeing up memory', updates on the prepay contract, filling in an online survey for credit, appointment checking, writing a book... yesteryear seemed smoking filled this need to do something while waiting. The opportunity cost with a cell phone seems a more positive option in contrast.

I do concur with Sherry Turkle on there being many things that can't be said in 160 characters or less, but no-one said the conversation ends on one utterance. Psychotherapy (Dr Turkle's prior training) also doesn't occur in a single sentence. No-one would expect it to. It's an oddity associated with the medium of text messaging that it tends to be judged on this inaccurate description of what is or isn't possible.

It is an error to judge texting as if it isolates people, it doesnt, there is clear evidence that it's connecting.
It is a further error to judge an utterance as if it were not part of a conversation.

I will go out on a limb here, and make my own judgment; its patronising to tell people who are clearly using a medium that is working for them, that its not.

To conclude, quoting the words of one of the young people who talked with me regarding his use of texting, 'it made it easier to say things'.
Being more able to converse, and more able to connect, are not signs of emotional detriment, quite the reverse.

Stimulating simulation conversation; being treated like a dummy

Seems Highered has only just caught up with simulation teaching and learning hazards as if this were a new technology/computer generating hazard.
The main issue identified by Sherry Turkle is the concern of transparency. And I agree. However, it seems superficial for both Highered and Turkle to only report the the wired hazards. Seems a little to easy to get a headline by demonising the online aspects involved. I would suggest taking this a step further as whether its a didactic class, a role play, or a session that is computer generated, there is always a need for critical thinking about what is learned and unlearned in such an environment.
Sherry Turkle is cited as being concerned that computer simulations introduce strange problems into reality. There is bias present in the title of her latest book 'Simulation and Its Discontents' (MIT Press) that tracks difficulties arising when simulation—from virtual-reality chambers for nuclear-weapon testing to computer programs for architectural design becomes integral in our daily and professional lives.
I do share some of her concern regarding what is accidently taught in simulations, and suggest looking at both first and second level impacts in the use of technologies. (For further reading refer to Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections. New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.)

I work in a health sector and it concerns me that a simulation of work with a patient may accidently teach that what you say or do doesnt matter so long as the task performed on the sim-man is technically proficient. A patient may live through the treatment, only to experience further abuse in being treated like a dummy.

objects we think with; I am therefore I think...revisited

I'd been cleaning out my parents unit and came across a wooden folding ruler and a wooden pyramid shaped 3d ruler and these reminded me of ways of thinking. I was reminded of maths classes where slide rules were the technology of the moment and log books...I couldn't use either now - I was going to say for love nor money. Love of such 'technology' and my Dads old tools could pique my curiosity.
And then in my google alerts there was a prompt to Sherry Turkle on Evocative objects; Things we think with. A student, gnaedigefrau, had a task to match a self taken photo and some poetry, and it got me thinking, again. My laptop has me thinking, the connectivity of the internet has me thinking...and I have to concede that things i think with include people, friends and strangers. I had been tagged to write of 25 things about myself in facebook, and it got me thinking...
I was 'mucking about' and fluttered into twitter, and there Colin Warren provoked some more thinking, an exercise in networking where a ball of wool was thrown around a lecture theatre symbolically concretising the networks.

There are multiple layers or realities involved in this provocation to thinking, the performance involves multiple realities of intimacy within a public space, and of being a thoughtful phd student while also being a lecturer...and I am reminded students will be blogging their learning too in the knowledge and enquiry paper, and how the tracing of thinking becomes possible with hypertext links making some of this more overt. A committment to what Wesch refers to as being knowledge able as oppossed to knowledgable.

I'm now seeing in Latour's writing when he writes of an ANT informed analysis as being a way to see, for instannce a cloth, folded, and refolded where what is illuminated is subject to change. And that this too is a performance, and the researchers own part in this is a further aspect to whats performed, whats seen and not seen. That reality is more than a perspective, its an engagement and it is not fixed, actors and artefacts are all shaped in combination. Mol talked of the ways different people engaged with arteriosclerosis, showing the multiplicity of this disease entity, but what of how the same actor engages differently at different times. Here's where there's an opening for investigating identity work.
I behave differently here than there, with these things rather than those things...My thinking is shaped by the tools i use, and is also presented differently because of the tools used.

the plot thickens

I had been reading Ken Alder (2007) Focus: Thick issues.
And this reminded me again of Sherry Turkle's Evocative objects, things we think with.
I keep thinking I should add a fanfiction site for Sherry Turkle but it has yet to happen, I would need more time.

Here's another thicker story:
In my childhood, we never had a wooden spoon. I had heard of these, they were after all a common entity, ubiquitous even had the word been known. But not in my family home.
My eldest sister and her friendly neighbour buried each and every one they came across. Or to be more exact, which came across them.
Or so I was told when I asked how come we didn't have one.
I know what wooden spoons are for, they are for burying in the garden.
Apparently they were also for hitting unruly children; stirring pots of jam, porridge, whatever.
I was never hit with one. They were all buried.
I have never owned a wooden spoon either. I had learned to live without this weapon. However, I have a spurtle. It's short, it's a Scottish variation; after all porridge is (arguably) nicer lumpless.
The shorter handle lends itself less to hitting.
And it's short length suits the modern size of saucepans, and the 'modern' cook who infrequently makes jam.
Has economics altered the ubiquity of wooden spoons?
Has birth control?
For myself, its also the less violent norms in domesticity.
A 'good' story provokes more questions, or so I am told.
A humble research approach doesn't tell others how their world is.
It suggests it might also be otherwise.

In providing a functionalist description of objects, Alder reminds me that this denies the incredible capacity for people to repurpose their tools. He says

"to reduce an object to its [stated] function involves more than a failure of attention: it is a slur on the human ability to repurpose the material world and on the power of things to reshape the contours of human experience."

As much as we think we shape our tools, they also shape us; there is push and pull.

Do you have a story? Write it with a backlink to here, I would be interested in 'hearing' it as I practice writing thicker stories.
:)
ailsa