>2. Across disciplines to intelligent readers, such as the Association of
>Internet RESEARCHERS: I would never use "blockmodeling" or "degree"
>without defining. Just as I would never use "performativity" or
>"performing gender". They are in-group terms. (Test for this: ask your
>[hetero?] partner tonight if s/he wants to "perform gender" and see what
>you get). OTOH, I would assume I could talk about regression coefficents
>or significance tests on this list, because they are common terms in all
>social sciences. AOIR has a special problem in this respect, because we
>reach into the humanities, which, for example, normally doesn't teach a
>basic stats course. (And of course, OTOH is a jargon term I assume is
>commonly understood.)
Well...yes and no.
I'll certainly accept that "performativity" and "performing gender"
are more intelligible to most humanities folks than they are to most
social scientists (though there are notable exceptions at both ends
of that game), but I'm less comfortable with the assumption that the
"we" of AoIR is first and foremost social scientists. Especially if
that means that those of us who call the humanities our home are
simply here because of some generous outreach (or reaching in?) on
the part of the group's core constituency. That doesn't deny Barry's
basic point about the terminology gap between different disciplinary
areas -- not at all -- but the assumption that the collective "we" of
the association is more comfortable with "regression coefficients"
than with "performativity" strikes me as unfounded. The
definition/translation work that (ideally) should happen here needs
to work both ways -- not just one.
cheers
gil
PS: It's a different level of assumption to quibble with, but ...
given that my partner also teaches in the humanities, does critical
theory, and has a degree in performance studies, I feel pretty
certain that I could suggest that we "perform gender" tonight -- and
that the results would be neither confusing nor disturbing. :)
