File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1998/lyotard.9812, message 80


Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:11:42 -0500
Subject: RE: paralogy




I have an example of a corporate attempt to control dicourse. It was part of
a training program that was used quite successfully to change the corporate
culture. I'm wondering if it in any way fits the notion of parology.

It was suggested that the form of meetings should follow three
classifications:
1. Initiating - Put ideas out for consideration, creates enthusiasm, orient
to future action. Examples: Proposing, building on others comments	
2. Reacting - Lets people know what others are thinking, helps get
information out, facilitates open communication. Examples: Supporting,
disagreeing, defending, attacking.
3. Clarifying: Increasing mutual understanding, fosters analysis of issues,
encourages understanding. Examples: Seeking information, giving information,
summarizing, testing understanding.

The percentages of each behavior appropriate in group discussions was even
specified.
the concept was very effective in controlling group discussions. Years later
we are still evoking phrases like "let me build on that" or "let me test my
understanding or  "I support that".

I realize that these rules of discourse do not ignore metanarratives. But
they are local and mutually agreed to. Is a group discussion that is bound
by these rules paralogical?

Don Smith

	

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005