Hello all! I have finshed a chapter and am reading again, thus the
entry. In the spirit of the peice we are discussing i will not compose this and
then send, but compose as it comes or goes.
        First, I'd like to say that we are now revising the 111 syllabus with
Pratt's notion very much in mind. Perhaps contact zones are more user friendly
than conflict or confrontation - but as they are very much alike in my mind, I
feel that this notion will be useful to the appraoch to discourse technologies
in writing as well as reading -- this might also be the conceptual link we are
lookinf for between/among the two courses.
        From reading the entries thusfar, one thing distrubs me in the
discussion because it clashes with my definition of contact zones. It seems in
most of the entries the notion of top down power is still emerging. Although
Pratt points out the assymmetrical relations, she is not, I think, theorerizing
a social space which is physical in the sense that as readers or writers we can
go there. We are always and already in the contact zone is what I think she,
and perhaps I, is trying to point out. There is no unproblematized social space
from which you can shift to be in a contact zone -- even from the "dominant"
position. What i hear her saying is that community/reading/writing always and
already exists within/among the many conflicting positions which we as readers
and writers, as people, inhabit. What becomes important is the recognition or
realization of this positioning within contact zones rather then unified
communities and then the transformative qualities that can come from
recognition. It is in hearing the Other, which is EVERYONE else. Of course some
OTHERS have been heard more than others (oh brother). But, as readers and
writers, we are all in some ways positioned as others to each other, the texts
we experience, the assignments we must complete. The key here, to me, is in
recignizing, by being exposed to texts and assignments which problematize - hmm
rather than challenge - or resist (if this means engage critically), the
different points from which we are in (not enter) the contact zones. I think
the second of Malea's poems points this out.
        I also think that Pratt gives us a way to do this - - ways we have
already discussed - - historicizing the discourse and oursleves as subjects
(not subjects of Serena - but both to and of as Malea has said) - - and she
points out since everyone is always and already in the contact zone, we all
have a stake - and we must explore how those stakes are different (ahh
difference). We could do this many ways, however, i see the discourse
technologies and the feminsims, ethnic concerns, etc that we have been speaking
of to be what Pratt call "safe houses." This is a (dis)body - i couldn't resist
a vic vitanza ism - of resistance, or location, where we can identify similar
positions within the zone - not to unify them (or identify a unified body) but
to understand the stakes and transform our own positioning within the zone. We
can only hope the the transformations will be toward a constant re-visioning of
opppression and justice.
                Wow! sorry to be long-winded, but as you know I always am. This
shoudl give people something to argue about at least. If you have any
suggestions for the 11 syllabus revision....Keep them to yoursleves!
                                Always and Already
                                        Rich