Language and being

The temporary 'Happy Talk' house, built out of pallets, to welcome expressions of public art at 'Art & About', in Sandringham Gardens, Hyde Park, Sydney.


I'm a part of several online communities. Spanning across my university subjects, and interests including philosophy, spirituality, writing software code, engaging counselling practice and sharing creative writing experience, there are many people I'm graced to meet, online, in a day and a month and a year whom I will never, ever, actually meet in person.

As our online selves are refracted back into embodied life, I've been prompted to reflect a little on how my way of being and speaking have changed, as  result of taking part in online community, in online life. The structures of the self, it seems, have never been more flexible, more permeable, than they are in this day and this age - it is almost entirely possible to own a persona that is the complete not-you of you, the antithesis of any identifier which would usually be a place within which your consciousness could be found, nurtured, on any given rainy Saturday afternoon. No longer are the constituencies of my physical being the determinants of my encounter with you - for all you know, reading this right now, I'm a 72 year old Nordish man who has happened into an internet cafe in Singapore by virtue of a missed flight home from Mauritius, looking for a spot of play in a complete figment of his own imagination, an online persona called Trish.

Presuming a little authenticity into the picture, and calling forth a sense that global online community might be a birthplace as worthy as any for that phenomenon we call 'intentional community', I've been reading into the shape of Wegner's Communities of Practice.

There are some useful signifiers that come from a paper on the same, by Fauske and Wade (2003) that delineate ways of being together, online, that are identified as 'generative' - that is, that foster deep and broad conversation, in an online environment.

There are a few different models of action enquiry and action research that are beneficial to encounter, with respect to these topics, as well. But for now, I thought I'd gather together some of the truly wonderful material from the Fauske and Wade paper, that we might engage these thoughts in our own being, in our here amongst, online.

The authors speak about what historically is shaped as gender-characterised discourse, but within their research they found no attribution could be made to male or female participants, rather they acknowledge that computer-mediated community participation and conversation grows when statements are made that are:

Supporting: statements that agree with earlier ones by other folks, and that express appreciation and thanking, acknowledging what others have said;

Perspective Taking: Considering of perspectives offered by other folks, and considering multiple points of view and alternative interpretations offered by others;

Inquiring: asking questions that do not constitute rhetorical devices in arguments.


Self Questioning: Of one's own assumptions, offering alternatives to the group to own point of view, making clear the disclaimers about knowledge or understanding in the field. Openness, hedging and sometimes doubting characterise this perspective.

Challenging: offering counter evidence, occupying a stance of distancing, with clarity as an intent.

Nonsupporting posts would be shaped like this:


Nonsupporting: Mocking, putting others down, isolating group members, aligning other voices against this one.

Posturing: Assuming a pose by lecturing to community members, assuming a type of authority that separates oneself from the others within the group.

Both men and women were reported as attenuating, which is to say that folks would offer suggestions, rather than be directive, and would remain receptive. Personalising responses also functions to enable seeing-in, to the connections and distinctions offered between communications.

Importantly, through engaging such practices, the researchers found that the democratic environment enabled by computer mediated community could be most resourced, where the structure through which the community had been grounded in the beginning, as they came together, could be easily dismantled once there was trust and agreement established amongst the members such that their own journey could be chartered. Roles in the community were radically revised, and subject to agreed revision without disharmony, and with maximal inclusivity of perspective. Interpersonal connectivity, in an environment seemingly hostile to such a phenomenon, was actually fostered.

Heavenly. :)

 Ref:
Fauske, J, & Wade, S.E. (2003). Research to Practice Online: Conditions that Foster Democracy, Community, and Critical Thinking In Computer-Mediated Discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2) 137-153.