[SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 9

[Sarah Amsler]

Hi all,

Thanks for the notes, Joss.

*Working practices*

I would add to number 15 on sustainable practices and relationships that in
addition to the logistics of how much time people spend working with the
SSC and the formal distributions of labour, there are more subtle things we
could be attending to in order to shift from thinking about ourselves and
our work as individualistic towards something more cooperative. In addition
to recognising that many members will be doing this in addition to other
activities, we can use the opportunities we have in this experimental space
to problematise and really think critically about what it means to work at
all, what sorts of work are made visible and which kinds are just absorbed
back into people’s private worlds, and etc. Not becoming exhausted will
require more than making sure we do not have too many demands on our time,
and there are ways that we can build relations of mutual aid that benefit
everyone. Recognising that people’s individual contributions may be quite
fluid in form and frequency could therefore also be paired with an
attention to how we might best enable one another to do as much as possible
and by desire. It does occur to me upon reflection that while the formal
structure of the SSC gives the *organisation* stability, this does not yet
necessarily say anything about the sustainability, inclusion or exclusion
of the members of the group themselves.

One concrete suggestion that came out of this discussion was to allow some
time in each meeting for everyone who wants to check in about the work
they’re doing and roles they’re playing to do so.

*Curriculum*

I missed the first part of the meeting when the open day and curriculum
were discussed; however, would suggest that we keep these questions
somewhat open. My feeling is that the framing of terms and classes, with
set amounts of time per each and etc., is both premature and closing at
this point. Although we could as ‘why not’ have terms and classes/learning
spaces/times/experiences/whatever defined in these ways, I can’t see any
convincing reason why we should at this point. While it does not prevent
more creative and serious thinking about the questions of what the times
and spaces of higher learning might need to be within the SSC, it certainly
does not encourage it. We say that language is difficult and I agree we
should not use the term ‘module’ (given the origins and the politics of the
term in this context), but then we do use the term. I think we need to talk
about this, really, beyond the logistics before setting logistics in place
that will begin to shape the knowledge we create about what we’re doing.
Where, for example, does ‘two hours’ come from? Why ‘credits’?

For the open day, can we at least say that some classes will run within
this sort of framing, if that’s what people want to do, and that there may
be others that take different forms?

*Media/representation*

On the *Lincolnshire Echo* interview – this seems to me part of an ongoing
conversation that we’re having about representation, collectivity and
individual identities and orientations. I like David’s suggestion that we
could have an alphabetical or otherwise random rota of people willing to
speak to others (media in particular) about the SSC if asked. That already
frames it differently. However, I think that we would miss something if we
were to become comfortable with this, as problems of power can’t be
neutralised by randomness. Those who don’t feel comfortable speaking for
various reasons will unlikely volunteer, or be invited by others to speak.
The media may gravitate to those with hegemonic gravitas, or by age,
presumed social capital, etc. It may be helpful at some point for those who
are interested to organise some explorations around power and privilege.
And there are still questions to be asked about how we come to some
understanding of our own position on representation itself – what forms
include, what forms exclude, which reproduce existing expectations about
individualised work and responsibility and which invite us to consider how
we could communicate otherwise.

Although it is not practicable for every occasion, I would like to propose
that as many opportunities as possible be offered up for collective
discussion -- e.g. with an interview, could they send some questions in
advance that we could discuss and then an individual or pair might feed
back about, as well as reply for themselves? Could we have a discussion at
some point about representation as such? And could we perhaps have a
workshop on engaging with media and publics, perhaps with help from some of
our more experienced colleagues in other groups?

Apologies for the long message.

Best,

Sarah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20120406/296f4874/attachment.html>