Organizing Dialogue, Experience and Knowledge for Complex Problem-Solving

Berdahl (again!)

July 14th, 2004

“[Informant] Thomas Speigal[‘s] warning about judging the past from the perspective of the present, about the simultaneous solidification of boundaries and blurring of distinctions between victims and perpetrators” (p. 217).
This quote continues her analysis of the commemoration parade, in a chapter she calls “Dis-membered Border”. This seems (to me, smile) to parallel my relational struggle – we are contesting who was/is “victim” and who was/is “perpetrator.” I see the ways in which both of us did both, AND my “20/20 hindsight” perceives the discursive evidence (what was said and what was not said) in much sharper relief than I heard at the time. I need to learn to hear/interpret differently (or at least with other possibilities in mind) and I think this is the crux of acting into a new discursive future when one recognizes a PM.
Berdahl’s work doesn’t ground the discursive “collision” in any specific microsocial instant of real interaction – she juxtaposes what people said in one context with what they say in another context. This is what I hope to do with the critical discourse analysis paper that I intend to write analysing the key new finding (a discovery!) from the workshop in Alaska. At any rate, I’m also wondering if there is something here that might lend itself to James’ and my history paper. I’ve been struggling with the Churchill/Bush examples and need to work out more clearly why I don’t think they will work….or at least, that they represent a very different strategy/approach than anything we’ve done previously.

Leave a Comment

Categories: history, Interpreting, oh...just me, PM dynamics
Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply