Terminology: a range of "interlocutors"

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Jump to: navigation, search

Questions around terminology: How to describe the various "contributors" with whom I'm working?
This page aims to provide some rumination on this topic.

Observed bias - Preoccupation with the amount of work being contributed - not necessarily a problem but is a cultural [read: perhaps Protestant] bias.

Questions for consideration:

  • How does Latour define "actors"?
  • How does Bakhtin defined "addressees"?
  • Is "contributor" a better or worse as a generic term? It could, for instance, be argued that it masks power relations. For the moment I'm thinking about the following:
Participant One who participates according to predetermined rules determined by others Activity is (generally) prescribed - agency is limited However, the participant may experience a high degree of psychic engagement - there is no way to account for this without asking them directly
Collaborator One who collaborates according to agreements over which they have more agency than just being able to opt out There are various kinds of collaborators. Some examples:
  1. They may shape the entire enterprise by developing the structure - ideally, this is the case with CP, where members agree/contest the terms of engagement with their every action)
  2. They may exercise high degree of "control" over a particular aspect of the project - as, for example, in the case of photographer who is documenting an event
Contributors A generic term I'm using to describe anyone with significant involvement in an enterprise The terms of this involvement are always subject to the situation - what is deemed significant involvement in one situation may not be in another

See also Marsha's Thesis Glossary and Key Terms

Return to Constructing the Thesis