The following video, set in film trailer format, employs Wenger’s thoughts (the text portions) with imagery and music to communicate several core notions about communities of practice. The images that follow each text frame provide various examples from contemporary society. The video is intended for viewers familiar with Wenger.
Laura March says
Love that both teams thought “out of the box” for this assignment (man, I do hate that term though…). I’m particularly intrigued with the idea that a peaceful coexistence and mutual support is not assumed (1:18), and when/where this happens in communities. My favorite thing to study in sociology is “attribution theory” — where a group forms and bonds through the mutual dislike of someone or something. It still applies today! Don’t we all have that *one kid* in our clique/class/work that everyone has a problem with? The group bonds by having a means to illustrate (and discuss) unacceptable behaviors. Fascinating!
JULIE FREAR SCHAPPE says
I agree with you – what do you think of Gee in light of the Wenger reading? I know they deal with slightly different perspectives or facets of membership, but I find myself drawn more toward Wenger because he recognizes discord. If we are in a constant state of bliss, why move forward?
MJ says
Pictures and music certainly allow us to communicate in ways that text alone does not. I’ve watched your film at least a half dozen times and will be anxious to talk about similar strands of thinking the two teams had while producing our posts for this week. In both cases, they seem to shatter pre-conceived notions of community and ask us to look more deeply beneath the surface of the inter-workings of communities. “it may not be an emancipatory force” — I’m wondering about an example of when that might be the case and how that resulted in being included as one of your team’s core notions. Looking forward to Tuesday’s class.
JULIE FREAR SCHAPPE says
The ’emancipatory force’ came from Wenger – as did all of the text in the video except ‘Alone in the wild no more’. I agree with Wenger’s statement. I see it as saying that being a part of a community doesn’t necessarily free you from oppression or open your pathways of expression or self-actualization. Hegemonic practices would be one example – communities that through their very existence or social processes submit their members to further subjugation. There are many within critical theoretical perspectives that hold this view – critical race theory, feminist theorists, and others. Saying that it ‘may not be emancipatory’ doesn’t mean that it can’t be. Critical literacy theorists say that communities can be emancipatory, particularly classroom communities – with awareness individuals can transform social and cultural contexts.
SCOTT P MCDONALD says
I think there is a natural balance between community and identity that you can see most obviously in more formalized forms of community like in governments. To be part of a community is to constrain yourself for the good of the community. You give up certain rights and get certain responsibilities in order to become a member. This may be another way to think about the ’emancipatory force’ idea from Wenger, that all communities are in their nature repressive of individuals. It does not mean there are not benefits, and often benefits that outweigh the losses of freedom. The idea that they can be emancipatory can only occur within the larger repressive context. That brings up the questions that Laura brought up in the micro-level: is it always necessary to have the *one kid* or the minority or the untouchables or whatever the repressed group is in any community?
JULIE FREAR SCHAPPE says
I’m not sure about ‘necessary’ but perhaps ubiquitous. Wenger certainly specifies the joint/mutual nature of communities, but also the discord. Gee clearly focused on in and out status of members. We may seek to limit repression, but as communities are comprised of individuals from diverse societies, it seems that there will always be a tension of sorts – someone or some other community outside of or competing with other communities. Would we want a society without these tensions? I’m not advocating subjugation in any way, but our awareness of the tensions signals our acceptance of a critical stance in some way. Does that make for a healthier society in the long run? Or a more destructive one? Or does is depend?
Cole W. Camplese says
The use of the TV casts is curious to me … is this the same group that used an image from the show, “Community” in the first week? What does it say that you are inserting pop culture representations of community (membership, identity, inclusion) into the video? Are we compelled to insert imagery that is consistent with the communication medium? If I am someone who doesn’t recognize the functional or dysfunctional relationships those captures represented am I lost? Hoe much of McLuhan’s reading influence this decision — if at all?
BTW, I discovered why your youtube wouldn’t embed — you have it unlisted and have disabled embedding. See this screenshot.
ROI KAWAI says
Cole, it’s was group 1 who put up the picture originally. I understand Cole’s inquiry about the use of television casts in these media. I doesn’t seem like he’s arguing for its inclusion or exclusion at a representation of a community; however, I do think that the inclusion of such images helps structure our discussion about community. There are very few communities (and whether we decide if the Arrested Development cast is or is not a learning community is another questions) that has a mass appeal/audience AND shows the nuance and complexity of the relationships/interactions/boundaries. The great thing about images is that it allows for questions to be asked based (for many, not everyone) a similar set of background knowledge, such as: how does this show represent or not represent the a community? Where do characters’ identit(ies) have space within that community? Have have the social relationships shaped both community and identity?