[SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 12

Tue Apr 10 12:17:37 UTC 2012

Hello all,

Good idea, Mike. I am unfortunately at a conference on Thursday but would
also be happy to be part of conversations ahead of then. We can perhaps see
this as part of a longer process of learning what we think about the issues
as well.

Best,
Sarah

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, <ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org> wrote:

> Send SSC mailing list submissions to
>        ssc at lists.aktivix.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        ssc-owner at lists.aktivix.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SSC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Media/Representation (Lincolnshire Echo) (Michael Neary)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:35:42 +0000
> From: Michael Neary <nearymichael at hotmail.com>
> To: <ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: [SSC] Media/Representation (Lincolnshire Echo)
> Message-ID: <COL101-W12C3669597A347EA74D6BCC9340 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
>
> Dear Sarah and David and all,
> I would like to find a way of taking your suggestions about talking with
> the media forward.   In the meantime, or at the same time and as part of
> this process, the Lincolnshire Echo would like to meet with us on Thursday
> for an interview.
> I suggest that we form a small group to meet with the journalist so we can
> agree what how we wish to present the SSC.  Given the time frame in which
> we are working this would need to be tomorrow, or before the meeting with
> the Echo on Thursday. I am very happy to join this meeting, but would not
> want to be part of the interview group. Any volunteers?
> What do you all think?
> Best wishes,
> Mike
> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 19:48:53 +0100
> From: simonewright73 at googlemail.com
> To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 9
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20120410/b8deebf7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
>
>
> End of SSC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 12
> ***********************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20120410/ec9063a4/attachment.html>