This is a sketchy first draft, but enough for students and faculty to work with until we have time to polish it. It's based on the Sticks and Stones in the Academy This exchange occurred on the Progressive Sociologists Net listserv, so that we may assume that there is a basic perspective of agreement here. (Theoretical reference: William A. Scott's Values and Organizations. Methodological approach to validity in research on values: one may assume that people that belong to an organization recognized for a given set of values, will be likely to hold those values.)

This is a good approach to learning to work out affect in academic discourse because there is a good place to start with shared values. Our objective will be to find non-structurally violent and non-violent responses to perceived disagreement within a group that does share some core values.

Structural violence is violence perpetrated through assuming homogeneity in a population that is in fact heterogeneous. The "rules," not a person who intends harm, are the cause of the harm. Violence is harm perpetrated by a person who so intends.

The objective of this interactive project is to explore non-violent ways to de-escalate perceived disagreement.

---

---

Examine the part of the Sticks and Stones exchange about Walter Goodman's article on the American Sociological Association:

From: "Alan Spector"
To: "PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK"
Subject: I don't understand this...
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000

I write this in all sincerity and without a hint of sarcasm: I really don't understand Richard Ratcliff's comment below. I included his entire comment in my message in case there was a concern that I was taking his comments out of context.

I wasn't trying to "reveal" anything about myself. Nor was I criticizing Richard Ratcliff. I was criticizing Goodman. I agree that there is too much jargon in sociology , and much of it is deserving, in my opinion, of satirical treatment. And while I don't like the rhetorical term "political correctness" because it has a right-wing connotation, I do believe that there is sometimes an exaggerated preoccupation with pleasing everyone and offending no one. But Goodman's comments go beyond a light critique; they scorn the very important enterprise of understanding, exposing, and combating racist oppression, and they reinforce the glib, sarcastic racist rhetoric of those who believe that they have "made it" while sneering down at those who are oppressed.

Alan Spector

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard E. Ratcliff"
To: "Alan Spector"
Cc: "PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK"
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000
Subject: Re: NY Times

It goes without saying all that Alan has revealed about himself through his use of quatation marks around his abridgment of my words "light critique of pretention." I am shocked, shocked.

Richard Ratcliff

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Alan Spector wrote:

Goodman's use of "quotation marks" around the word "racism" is a pretty good indication that he disregards the murderous nature of racism in the world today. Sure, there is room for "light critique of pretention". But to be dismissive of the crushing reality of racism is racist.

Alan Spector

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard E. Ratcliff"
To: "kumru toktamis"
Cc: "Steve Rosenthal" ;
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: NY Times

I read the article by Walter Goodman to see just how vicious the alleged attack on the working class, etc had been. What I found instead was a rather light critique of the pretention and jargon that Goodman found in the sessions he attended. His article, as I read it, contains little if anything that could be called dismissive of issues of class, racial or sexual justice. But those who see the sort of sessions and themes that predominated in this years ASA meeting as deadly serious and not meriting a bit of parody aimed at themselves should avoid the article.

Richard Ratcliff

---

---

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: "Richard E. Ratcliff"
To: Alan Spector
cc: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK
Subject: Re: I don't understand this...

I fear that my comment was written too late at night and with a greater effort to be subtle than clear.

My intended point was that Alan seemed to be attributing much too much meaning to the use of quote marks around "racism" in the NYT article. Alan used similar quotes around my words for the simple purpose of emphasis, and has done more of the same in his follow-up query. To attribute great meaning (as in seeing the writer as a racist) to a matter of writing style seems a tad "overdone."

In the past I suspect that many on PSN have seen much pretention in ASA meetings. For us now to get too bothered when an outsider, viewing a meeting in which convention-goers claim that their sessions are at the core of fights for social justice and transforming the society, sees jargon and pretention, is perhaps losing a bit of a sense of proportion.

Richard Ratcliff

---

---

Creating a Peacemaking atmosphere. For the discussion you will need to note in your journal the major points made by both Ratclif and Spector. Two chairs for "Ratcliff" and "Spector" surrounded by semicircle of workshop chairs.

Four or five students should prepare to take on the role of "Ratclif" and "Spector." Provide them with a starting script, perhaps Ratclifs "I am shocked, shocked." and Spector's "I don't understand this . . ." Lines actually written by each them to express a breakdown in communication.

During the workshop discussion the two students enacting the roles of "Ratclif" and "Spector" can most effectively sit facing the group in a semicircle in front of them. The other prepared students should sit, completing the circle, behind "Ratcliff" and "Spector". The students prepared to engage in this project form the good faith communication team in public discourse. Their objective is to support each other in helping to smoothe the communication and get the two parties back to a point in discourse where they can hear one another. The objectivie is NOT to get "Ratclif" or "Spector" to agree. The point is to get them to agree to disagree, to find that normative and acceptable, and then to proceed to their argument over the disagreement. We want to get past the point where there is a "right" or "wrong," a "winning" or "losing," to the point where we can respect and take into account the best of both of their arguments.

A good faith hearing for every validity claim, one of Habermas' criteria for legitimacy (which is a kind of metanarrative), requires that we actually process the information in good faith. Only in this way can we come to understand where the miscommunication is coming from and strengthen public discourse. (Nag jeanne to put in some Habermas here that you can cite in scholarly work. No time right now.)

Resolving conflict in academic discourse is just like resolving conflict in other areas.

• Look for points of agreement.
• Identify the primary positions of the argument.
• Follow and clarify the reasoning in the argument.
• Clarify the major points of disagreement.
• Clarify the points over which we agree to disagree, and the points over which we will seek to incorporate shared reasoning into those things on which we can agree.

  Notice how much this is like the way in which a lawyer prepares a case.

Instructions for the discussion:

• Two students begin the enactment with their knowledge of the listserv discussion and the minimal script.
• As each one speaks, others in the prepared group, may walk up behind them, place their hands on their shoulders and speak for them, expressing how the other would have made the statement or reacted.

  In other words, the students play each role as a team.

---

With a little practice, this process allows us to see the range of responses that are, in fact, normative, and thus confront some of our own wicked little unstated assumptions. The process also helps discover non-violent approaches to perceived violence or structural violence, in that students call on each other for imagining ways not to escalate the affect, and to get back in touch with the real issues.

The emotion that automatically attaches to the role-playing also helps us to recognize that the choice between adversarialism and mutuality is not a clear cut adversarialism or mutuality, but a blend of the two which takes into account both reason and the affective content of the social context. Once again, notice the similarity to the task of the lawyer. Not only must there be clear and convincing evidence of the legal cause of action, but also we must take into account the social context that will affect the perception of the trier of fact.

With practice, students won't need a formal set up. They will begin to use this technique to understand the issues better. Then they won't need the physical proximity of touching the soulders of the speaker. They can engage in this process anywhere, in any set up.

An excellent supplement to this interactive project is to ask the students who took the "Ratcliff" role to switch to the "Spector" role. This is an old moot court training piece that we find is appropriate to critical argument as it is to adversarial argument in the courtroom.

Another ramification is to consider the extent to which the adversarial position in legal argument is and/or should be tempered by ethics in the argument and presentation of social issues and social justice.

Next step: To move this process to the Academic Discourse Forum, so that we can expand the project to the virtual community of Dear Habermas, where everyone can join in.

This project is based on government training in working with youth in high risk neighborhoods. The ten-day workshop was in Oakland in 1973. jeanne was there.

---

---