Boundary Practices

Wenger acknowledges that although the term ‘community’ tends to suggest positive nuances, it does not necessarily mean that positive processes will always follow.  Since communities of practices (COPs) do not exist in isolation and are affected by other individuals and communities, the term ‘boundary practices’ is important to consider when examining communities of practice.  Boundary practices refer to the lines of connection and disconnection, inclusion or exclusion that transpires between members of two or more communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998).  According to Wenger when communities of practices are formed several processes tend to follow - identifies are produced, bonds of connections are formed and shared understandings and the capacity to act together become established.  It is however important to note that communities of practice which can be beneficial for some, can also have negative effects on others. 

During our last class Professor Plumb shared how he actually ‘stumbled’ on Wenger’s theories on social learning and how he used it in a research project on HIV and Aids he was working on.  This project from what I understand was tasked with finding out just how people were hearing about HIV and Aids, an illness which was not particularly well known at the time.  What I found interesting was the short discussion on groups who seemed to be on the peripheral edge such as gay men and what effects this lack of political power may have had.  Gay women on the other hand, whose association with the feminist movement at that time, seemed to possess more power.  Wenger notes that individuals will not always be core members of the group(s) they desire, but may instead be situated through no choice of their own, on the margins.

The issue of boundaries and established margins of a community of practice brings to mind a recent article I read on Black porters and the labour movement.  The article on display for African Heritage Month spoke of the struggles and problems of Black porters who fought for equality at work on the railroads.  The display, on loan from an African Nova Scotian porter which featured artefacts and memorabilia from that time period, also included an actual seniority list entitled ‘Sleeping, Dining and Parlor Car Department Seniority List.’ The list contained the names of individual workers, the dates they started work, their position with the railway and their level of seniority.  The seniority list was significantly revealing because it overtly displayed the ranking order (seniority) of railway employees.  Blacks tended to figure prominently on the very last pages of this list - an indication of their lack of seniority and lower paying jobs.  Although Professor Plumb’s lecture did not delve into the struggles faced by gay men during that time period, what is apparent is that both these groups (black porters and gay men) seemed to be affected by the boundary practices of other communities of practice.   

Black porters, whose race alone prompted a solidarity borne out of racism, represent a community of practice who share much in common.  This particular group of railway workers experienced racial discrimination, a lack of opportunities for advancement, variable wages and exclusion from white unions.  At a time when racial discrimination was dominant these men did not have a wide range of employment options to choose from, thus the railway became one of the few places where African Canadians could find steady work, especially as sleeping car porters.  The railway, overwhelmed at that time with chronic workforce shortages, took advantage of both Canadian born and foreign born black labour (Mathieu,  2001).  Although the railway cannot be considered a community of practice as described by Wenger, it did consist of a constellation of communities of practices – i.e. white Porters, white unions, Black porters, management teams, etc.  The Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees (CBRE) who also represent a community of practice drew clear boundary lines which excluded black porters.  Membership in the CBRE specifically forbade any black man from joining, extending membership to white men only – thus one’s race defined a boundary (Mathieu, 2001).  Wenger’s social learning theory provides an opportunity to examine how relationships exist and transpire within a community of practice and how social exclusion can create boundaries within communities of practice. 

Through explicit exclusion white unions tried to exert control over black porters simply by their refusal to allow black members to join their union.  According to Wenger ‘because boundaries create new interplays of experience and competence, they are a learning resource in their own right’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 254).  The overt exclusion exhibited by the CBRE eventually left Black porters with little choice but to organize themselves.  They in turn developed strategies to challenge both the railway and white unions and in 1917 formed the first black railway union, the Order of Sleeping Car Porters ( Mathieu, 2001). 

The formation of a black union provides an example of how imposed boundaries such as those created by the CBRE actually had both a negative and positive effect on Black porters.  On the one hand Black porters who were excluded from membership to the CRBE were not able to reap the benefits this union provided.  However on the other hand, the formation and organization of a black union provided black porters with a means to defend the rights of black workers, ultimately threatening the so called status quo at that time.  It is important however not to minimize the continual struggle this group faced in its efforts to gain equality, often challenging prevalent power structures within the CBRE.  Wenger’s theory however does not address how power both shapes and manipulates communities of practice.

References

Mathieu, S. (2001). North of the colour line: Sleeping car porters and the battle against Jim Crow

      Canadian rails, 1880-1920. Labour/Le Travail. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from

       http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/11t/47/02mathie.html

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York

      Cambridge University Press.