Walls
Some of us have been discussing the concept of "walls." First thought might be that walls are designed to keep people "out" -- or "in" as the case may be. Dividing structures they are, no doubt. But I remember the final line of the musical play, The Fantastiks," -- " Keep the Wall, you must always keep the Wall." In this case, the Wall is not a barrier, but a definition of boundary, often important to peace in the neighborhood or the family.
In a membership organization, the "wall" protecting member benefits is sometimes seen as positive -- i.e. members pay to support the organizations, ergo they should have a private place to interact, thus, the wall. But might that wall prevent membership development, prevent non-members from experiencing the AECT network and thus from joining up? Restrict dialogue? Limit interaction? Might the wall then be counterproductive to our growth, our diversity, our professional community?
The wall, of course, might be constructed to make this new aectnow site exclusive to members -- a benefit? Or an obstacle? What think you?
- patricia Miller's blog
- login or register to post comments
the void
all of which reminds of one of my favorite bits from the Tao Ching, you can recognize the good parts because they're the ones you don't quite get:
11
Thirty spokes share a wheel hub,
it is the (empty) space (not spokes, nor hub) makes wheel useful.
Shape clay into a vessel,
It is the empty space within, makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room,
It is the holes, make a room a room.
Therefore, what is there defines its form,
what is not there defines its use.
In this context and freely translated, "It's people stupid..." and if it's weeks between posts we have a problem that needs attention.
Are we a group?
Pat makes the suggestion that -- as a member -- each of us are entitled to a "private place to interact." This is an interesting idea and one we should explore. Given the AECT's track record on member-to-member interaction, that would certainly be a radical change in direction and one that I'd kinda like to see explored a bit.
But it begs the larger question.
Stephen Downes had this to say about walls. The crux in there is that he differentiates between a group and a network.
The problem, of course, is that we are a group trying to operate in a networked world.
The reality of AECT is that communications among members -- the only real value a professional organization offers -- is limited by membership.
Want to sent a note to all the members? Can't.
Want to start a conversation among other members? Can't. (Because you can't find the people who might be interested in the conversation because you can't send a note to all the members...)
Want to subscribe to the content so that it's delivered to you and not be required to remember to visit a central server to find out what's happening? Can't (well "Couldn't" .. AECTNow has RSS).
The problem is that the execution of AECT is as if it were a business marketing some service to the membership. We want that brand recognition. We need them to visit our site. We want them be able to only talk to each other here.
Because we seem to think that this is what has value.
Chris Lott has this to say about the power of the mob.
If we are of the mob, and we adopt the rules of the mob -- and we must since we are the mob -- then the mob will flow around, over, through, under or encyst and spit out the walls.
AECTNow, in many ways, is a response of the mob to circumvent the walls established by the few to control the many. The amusing thing is that, we're the mob. We don't need the AECT or AECTNow or membership in the club that prevents us from communicating with each other in order to communicate.
The interesting question for me in this is:
"If we don't need the AECT to do what we want to do, then why are we members?"
The corollary is:
"What do we want to do?"
The answers to that are legion:
- Talk to colleagues
- Get promotion and tenure
- Find new ideas
- Be informed about job openings
- Learn about old ideas that we haven't picked up yet
One of the key questions comes back to the question of affiliation (Thank you, Abe Maslow). Up to now most seem to think that they need to affiliate with a group. Downes in his article, and Chris Lott in his, seem to suggest that it's possible to affiliate with a network.
If AECT is a group (closed, walled, homogenous), and we certainly behave as if this were true, then we have one kind of definition of walls.
If AECT is a network (open, linked, diverse), we have another.
So? We have a binary condition and we're at the proverbial fork in the road. We can't go back and we have to choose one path or the other.
Because of the power structure within the organization, it will be the few members of the Executive Committee who will decide a direction and then present it to the Board as a whole to ratify or not. Membership has a voice, but as "customers" and not "owners" so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Remember Chris Lott's assertion:
The mob is smarter, faster, and stronger than you.
But also remember:
We are of the mob.