Dear All,
It was not my intention to post again, but a serious accusation
requires a response and a question deserves an answer.
Cameron Tonkinwise wrote,
"It goes to the heart of the matter. Ken
Friedman did not just assume an avatar.
To conduct his unethical research experi-
ment - what an example for a PhD list! -
he could have assumed the avatar of any
young male. That he chose to impersonate
a woman when negotiating issues of author-
ity makes this matter greatly more serious."
Cameron accuses me of unethical research. This is a serious charge.
It is clear that I used a pseudonym. In doing so, I deceived the
other members of this list. In creating a pseudonym, I chose an
identity that would be far removed from my real person. I shifted
gender from male to female. I changed the role from full-time
academic to working professional. I changed the academic status from
professor to that of a part-time graduate student. I created details
to bring this character to life.
Again, I state that this was not research, it was not a carefully
considered ploy, and it was not an experiment. I created what would
have been called a pen name (nom de plume, pseudonym) in another
context.
I cannot see how anyone can misconstrue my act as a research
experiment. This is no more a research experiment than the actions of
anyone who has ever created a pseudonym for any purpose.
Cameron and I have clashed on a number of occasions. On each
occasion, he has raised the stakes in the debate by stating his case
in sharp and dramatic terms. In this case, he labels this a an
"unethical research experiment," and asserts that the act of using a
pseudonym to address the list was "not a forgivable mistake." In past
debates, I have challenged Cameron on his dramaturgical debating
style, heated language, and a tendency to shift or mislabel issues to
win his point. (Cameron also clashed with Cindy, who pointed out
Cameron's careless use of words.)
I created and used a pseudonym. I apologized for an act of mistaken
judgment. The act was purposeful. The judgment was mistaken. If
Cameron deems this unforgivable, it is his right not to forgive me.
I have long been a target of Cameron's wrath. On two or three
occasions following sharp public encounters, we had what I thought to
be friendly correspondence, clarifying misunderstandings and
developing what I thought was a mutually respectful disagreement.
Perhaps this was an illusion on my part.
Soon after I revealed my deception, I heard echoes in several circles
to make me aware that Cameron has been writing and saying a great
deal about this. This is his privilege.
As far as I know, however, this is the first time that Cameron has
written anything publicly. He has never discussed it with me. For
that reason, I only just now learned that Cameron accuses me of
unethical research practices.
It is Cameron's right to have any feelings toward me that he chooses to have.
It is not Cameron's right to mislabel the use of a pseudonym as an
"unethical research experiment."
The dramatic progression that such a charge entails would suggest
that I be expelled from the design research community or at least
that the list should expel me. Cameron also suggests that I should
have chosen a male pseudonym. Perhaps he wishes the pleasure of
tearing off my epaulets, breaking my sword, and exiling me to Devil's
Island.
One issue that I hear offended Cameron was the fact that my pseudonym
debated him and others on the topic of Design Philosophy Papers - a
journal to which he often contributes. My pseudonym also debated
Cameron on Heidegger, a philosopher he admires. Given the fact that I
was an editorial advisor to Design Philosophy Papers, my use of a
pseudonym to debate about Design Philosophy Papers created strong
emotions for several people. These emotions apparently ran the
spectrum from anger and rage to sadness.
At the time, it seemed appropriate to me to resign from my position
on the editorial board of Design Philosophy Papers. It seems that my
resignation from the journal was insufficient for Cameron. There
seems to be much more at stake here in what he deems an unforgivable
act. Since Cameron has never seen fit to correspond with me about
this, I cannot say more about it. I cannot resign from anything else
to atone further.
When I disagreed with Cameron in the past, I took the time to write
to him personally as well as to debate him publicly. One cannot hope
to emerge from every debate as Ricardo and Malthus did, good friends
and close colleagues with differing positions, but I find this
happens often among my friends in this community. I am sorry that my
relationship with Cameron seems to be so irretrievably bad that he
now reveals to me thought the list what he has long been saying and
writing to others.
One thing Cameron writes - in a second post - is correct:
"Ken may have avoided some of the
reactions to what he did, if Cindy HAD been
viewed as a research project."
Jan asked about my choice of a female gender identity.
Perhaps my decision to create a female pseudonym sets this in a
different light than would have been the case had I decided to create
a male pseudonym. I am not sure why this is so, but I accept the
possibility.
The choice itself was clear. I create an identity that would be
opposite to me on several clear dimensions. Since I am a male,
choosing a female identity seemed sensible. That was the reason.
Making the choice had interesting implications, however.
I modeled the character of Cindy Jackson on several female leaders
who influenced me greatly as a young man in the 1960s. One of them
was an older woman who had been active in gender politics since early
in the century. As a girl, she had known Susan B. Anthony! Another
was a chain-smoking physics professor with a John Wayne attitude
toward life and a vocabulary of words strong enough to make a sailor
blush. A third was younger. She was a minister whose ordination
created great controversy at a time when even the most liberal
denominations had a problem with female clergy.
Most members of this list are probably too young to have known many
feminists of that generation. "Cindy's" voice (however imperfectly I
rendered it) would possibly have been recognizable to people who knew
women who succeeded in politics, business, academic life, and church
life in the era spanning the late 1940s to the early 1960s.
These women were tough, sharp, resourceful people. They had to be. In
those days, a woman really had to be twice as smart and twice as
effective as a man to hold a position at the same level and earn half
the salary. The clear thinking and rigorous debate I remember as a
stylistic hallmark served as models for the voice I created for Cindy.
The character of Cindy presented herself as an executive and
part-time graduate student who presumably would be somewhere in her
late thirties to mid-forties. It is true that Cindy's voice probably
did not ring true for some people. Perhaps this is because they were
thinking of Cindy as such a person might be today. Looking back, this
should have been the greatest clue to Cindy's status as a pseudonym.
Cindy's voice was modeled on a far earlier generation of women who
were reaching (or past) retirement age in the 1960s. Their thinking
and style influenced a young man who was then in his teens. I am that
young man. I am in my mid-fifties now, and I modeled the voice of
Cindy Jackson on women who influenced my thinking and rhetoric in
many ways.
I chose to engender Cindy as a female to endow her with personal
qualities opposite to my own in people's minds. Once I made that
choice - and this may be the subconscious at work - I gave her a
voice modeled on the voices of women who influenced me greatly. I
admired these women, and in creating a female character, I attempted
to give her voice the qualities I admired in people who were among my
role models.
I have nothing to apologize for in choosing these voices as a model.
Some of you may not like the voice that I chose, but I did not choose
a woman's voice to position her as an inferior. I chose a female
identity to make her seem unlike myself. I am not a woman. That
explains the decision.
Once I made the choice, I endowed this woman with what I remembered
as qualities in women who were not the victims of a "naturalized
value-position."
While I was negotiating issues of academic status and authority, it
should be clear that the character of Cindy - had she been a real
person - would earn a far greater salary than I earn, would exercise
far greater authority in professional practice, and she would have
earned the right to speak as she did.
The difficulty of creating an appropriate character and endowing the
character with a full range of appropriate qualities to engage in
debate as an equal partner is one more issue I failed to consider
deeply enough. Nevertheless, I envisioned someone who was "not-Ken"
rather than envisioning someone inferior to me.
The women I chose as models took part in great struggles. Sometimes
they failed. They often succeeded. I worked for some of them and
studied with others. I learned from all. No single person served as a
specific model for Cindy, but I borrowed on many memories for her
qualities of mind and character.
If Cindy's voice sounded in some part like mine (and it did), it is
in part because her voice contains memories of women who influenced
my voice as well.
Sincerely,
Ken Friedman
|
