where I can see to vs. where I am

I got sidetracked tonight from what I meant to be reading - and ended up here on Wikipedia:

To the extent that a deep conceptual change involves importing practices and perspectives from one community of practice into another, such change involves what Wenger calls “boundary encounters.” Such encounters change the way each community defines its own identity and practice. Crucial to the success of the boundary encounter is the role of highly skilled “brokers”, who straddle different communities of practice and facilitate the exchange process.

“The job of brokering is complex. It involves processes of translation, co-ordination and alignment between perspectives. It requires enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilise attention and address conflicting interests. It also requires the ability to link practices by facilitating transactions between them, and to cause learning by introducing into a practice elements of another. Toward this end, brokering provides a participative connection – not because reification is not involved, but because what brokers press into service to connect practices is their experience of multi-membership and the possibilities for negotiation inherent in participation.” (Wenger, 1998, p. 109)

Which is what I *want* to be doing -- and in some ways am doing -- but I'm not doing it well enough. Sustaining the negotiation process long enough to be a real participant. Hmmm. Sustained commitment is one thing I've been learning about - I usually fall short in the "insufficient reification" area too, but I've made huge progress. i.e. finishing projects, keeping up group collaborations & projects, publishing stuff... and somehow it all seems the same as in my problems with real life relationships too.

So for example with my efforts on Blogher I have put in a lot of work into looking, and reading, and then summing up a bit (where earlier in life i would have looked and read, but not said anything outside of my own journal) but I am not engaging deep enough, not going back to all the blogs I've talked about, which means what I'm doing is superficial and not participatory. But b/c I want to have a broad view, there is not time. I want to make the entry point for other people to engage more closely, that's the whole point of my metaphor about being a party host. Yet... I feel deep suspicion of what that does to me and my own depth of relation to the world, to other people, and to knowledge.

Comments

[serena]

You know, this is a HUGE job. Huge. Part of being good at it, I think, involves understanding just how huge it is, and having some respect for that fact. I have been guilty of attempting to set up as a broker without taking into consideration what an enormous time and energy commitment it is.

A lot of it is about temperament. You have a temperament which thrives on exploring a really wide range of things. Mine, on the other hand, likes to pick a very few things and go into them very deeply. It's key to understand your own temperament and not try to force yourself to be someone you're not.

Also, sometimes, less is more. I used to think I had to do something like start a gallery or publish a magazine in order to be supportive of underrecognized artists, for example. But now I've realized that it's more appropriate for me to put most of my energy into my own art, and just blog about other awesome artists when I come across them. I may very well be doing the other artists a bigger favor than if I tried to promote their careers in a big way, and failed because I'd bitten off more than I could chew.

[savtadotty]

Serena is spot on: "Know thyself" and thine own boundaries. Then you can be the Most Effective Badger possible.