Hi all
This is a voice from the outside. This so called censorship seems to be a
really exciting
issue. There seem to be a lot of fears and projections, and an overestimation
of CT. It
stimulated me to think about the function of CT and who is included and who is
excluded.
I would like to mention a few points which are much more exclusive than the new
guidelines (please forgive my language mistakes):
1) This forum is a private initiative, a deliberate service. So Chris has
every right to
handle it in his own way.
2) There is already a hidden censorship": the language. As this forum is
in English it has
a big bias towards the Anglo-American community. There is, for example, only
one
German facilitator who makes regulary contributions Sneh, who is married with
an
American and speaks English at home. Only once in a while you'll find a
contribution from
the Latin-American or Asian or European countries. It seems, as if the FC
community is
merely American / Australian, although the work itself is much stronger in
other parts of
the world. For example: the hype about the American elections what had it to
do with
FC? The discussion about the apology of the Australian Prime Minister it is a
local
phenomenon. Or Dan Cohen's PhD? I mean, it's fine that he made it, and it is
good to
know that there is another dissertation, but there are so many peaces of
profound work in
other countries, which are not even mentioned. So the language of the forum
creates a
reality on it's own. To make it clear: I am not against English as the forum
language, but
we should see the implications. Actually it excludes more people from the
discussion then
any new guideline. To me, who is working in many countries in Europe and Asia
but not in
the Anglo-Saxon countries, it is like reading the newspaper to get an
impression what the
people in America and Australia are talking about.
3) So any forum or even an organisation like ISCA will not reflect the
international
community. By the very fact that the language is English it will reflect
basically the Anglo-
American discussion and view. When, for examle, I read the basic article about
constellations on the ISCA webpage I didn't feel represented at all. I honour
the huge work
which has been done by those who created this site but reading this article I
felt it is a
different world. To me it is a very artificial construction about FC and it's
roots" (which
are merely products of thought) which tries hard to look sophisticated and
scientific. I
didn't find any depth in it. No soul, no spirit, just thought. This of course
is not only a
question of language, but it seems clear that the language creates a shift in
the
perspectives and discussions. This may not be bad, and I don't see any
alternative to
English as the international language, but it has it's consequences.
4) I think the forum is a very useful tool to connect, but not more. And
it is an
American-Australian forum, it doesn't represent or integrate something like the
international FC community. And similar will be a blog on the ISCA website.
5) To write this took me twice or three times as long then to write in my
own language.
And I am only able to share informations, I am not able to express myself
authentically.
Wilfried Nelles, Germany
