-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone else read this article? Bibliographical details:
Kaeren Harrison & Derek McGhee
'Reading and writing family secrets: reflections on mass-observation'
AUTO/BIOGRAPHY
Vol. XI Nos 1&2, pp. 25-36, 2003.
Any responses to Bob Rust's views?
Sandra
--On 08 July 2004 12:15 +0100 Bob Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
> Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dorothy drew my attention to a piece by Harrison and McGhee, which dealt
> with M-O.
>
>
>
> I read it through three times, the last time very carefully on a boring
> train journey. I sensed the same veiled criticism and negativism then as
> I did at the first speed-read. The first thing that 'got up my nose' was
> the "50+, white, middle class, heterosexual." Unless they got into those
> carefully guarded personal files the responses would only tell age and
> sex, with possibly the job indicating class. I certainly don't remember
> being asked for my colour, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Having read
> some of the comments I wondered if it was the same M-O that I write for.
> I certainly don' t remember being initiated, did I miss out? No
> instructions, no head down the lavatory!
>
>
>
> I certainly never knew it was run by a manipulative schemer. In fact in
> my world some of those inferences could provoke violence. I can't believe
> that the archivist played mind games by shuffling commissioned directives
> in the running order. Again it may be me with my cynic's head on, but I
> sensed sour grapes or disappointment. To me there were many thousands of
> words defining a subjective opinion, inferred from another's subjective
> opinion. Again this may be my critical impression, the paper gave the
> impression that when their [H/G] directives were commissioned they were
> looking for an "opinion poll" result on "the pose the right question and
> get the answer to suit your case" model. What we in the TGWU called a
> "Jack Dash" after the old docker's leader who always framed the motion so
> that a yes vote was the only answer.
>
>
>
> There is a quote : - " The different ways M-Os position themselves in
> their responses is often dependent on whom they think has constructed the
> directive: is it the imagined friend they trust and respect (the
> archivist), or is it someone else (a 'guest researcher)?" When I read
> that my mental response was "How the hell do they know, who did they
> ask?" Surely Tom Harrison started this thing because the press thought it
> knew what the public thought about the abdication? My second thought was
> that I had never thought of the directive being "constructed" by anyone.
> In my innocence, I thought someone at M-O or a researcher thought, "Let's
> see what the contributors have to say about that."
>
>
>
> It goes on : -
>
> "One would think that a commissioned directive from a guest researcher
> is, in essence, a more directly intertextual (a word my OED doesn't
> recognise) process as the purpose of the 'encounter' between researcher
> and respondents is the production of qualitative data in the form of
> hand-written or word-processed responses; and this 'data' will in turn be
> subjected to, or be the subject of further writing in the form of the
> researcher writing about, writing down (quoting from responses),
> writing-up and writing through this data in their dissemination of 'the
> research'."
>
>
>
> When I see a 'commissioned' topic (yes this is me being subjective) I
> wonder, "What are they researching, can I contribute any useful views or
> opinions on the subject. If as is implied we are all 50+ then I think few
> in that age group would ever think of "contributing data" probably like
> me just "putting in their twopenn'orth."
>
>
>
> I would certainly say that I have never seen a directive as a
> questionnaire; in fact if it became that I would pack up. I see it as
> pointing me in the direction of something on which M-O wanted my
> views/opinions/experiences in my words in my way. Probably what M-O gets
> is a response to what that particular topic stirs in me. I could see a
> question and answer it very directly or I could follow that tangential
> labyrinth that a provoking conversation takes. Being a "barber or a cab
> driver" doing my bit to set the record straight.
>
>
>
> I can remember saying a long time ago that I can't write to an
> organisation or into a void. In the beginning I wrote to David. After the
> first open day when Dorothy, Joy and Judy became "real" people I tend to
> write to them as a group. There were many mentions of letters i.e. "Some
> of the most compelling letters"; to me submissions in response to
> directives and letters are two entirely different things. Perhaps others
> think of things differently, but again how do the authors know?
>
>
>
> There is a quote that partly touches on this point: -
>
> "? ? process of guest researchers commissioning and collaboratively
> writing a directive is very carefully managed and contextualized within a
> rather more 'special relationship' between the M-O correspondents and the
> M-O archivist. This 'special relationship' is cultivated right from the
> start of a correspondent's initiation into the programme, and, as will be
> demonstrated below, it is the archivist who is a crucial component in the
> creation of the correspondents as the narrators of the everyday, as
> writers of their own lives."
>
>
>
> Still further: -
>
> "For example, when new M-Os join the project, the archivist encourages
> them to be as open and candid as they can be. 'There is no emphasis on
> correct grammar or spelling, but rather on self-expression and a
> willingness to 'tell a good story'. In their introductory welcome letter
> from the Archivist, prospective M-Os are told that they should be 'a
> vivid and conscientious social commentator as well as an open and
> thoughtful biographer'
>
>
>
> When a directive topic is being described, there is acknowledgement in
> the introductory preamble that some subjects may be uncomfortable to
> write about. In these cases, advice is usually given along the lines of
> the following: - 'It is always up to you how much you wish to say. You
> can if you wish confine your reply to your opinions rather than your
> experiences, but as we have often said before, it is personal experience
> and insight, which have a way of bringing your directives to life. The
> franker you can be, the more valuable your contribution. This is what
> makes our project so unique. (Summer, 1990, Directive No. 32)' "
>
>
>
> After thirty years as a Union Secretary and contributor to club
> newsletters I would say that the hardest thing in the world is to get a
> Britain to put pen to paper. This same preamble appears almost word for
> word in an editorial in my lorry club's Newsletter in July 1983, back in
> David's day. Viz.
>
>
>
> " Why not try your hand at writing for YOUR magazine - you'll be
> surprised how easy it can be! Don't worry too much about grammar or
> spelling if that is not your particular bent - we can knock it into
> readable shape."
>
>
>
> Even people moved to write are unwilling. To quote one recently retired
> driver.
>
>
>
> "I would love to write for the Newsletter, I've got lots of stories to
> tell, BUT I don't spell very well and the punctuation would be all wrong"
>
>
>
> Such comments made us try to get people to put their stories on tape so
> that we could write them, but that seemed to need a 'prompter'.
>
>
>
> Thus I never saw an ulterior motive in Dorothy saying the same thing, or
> in the caveat about "touchy" subjects.
>
>
>
> Yet again, this next quote implies a carefully conceived con worthy of
> "Diamond Jim."
>
> "This is slightly disingenuous as a lot of care is taken to ensure that
> every correspondent does indeed receive a hand-written acknowledgement
> note of some description from the archivist once every three or four
> directives. [Was this a surmise on their part?] (Of course, the
> impression that a standard letter system normally operates might then
> make receiving a hand-written note all the more significant, helping to
> foster a two way 'personal link' Dorothy alludes to). Nevertheless, the
> point can be made that revealing snippets about her life, background,
> likes and dislikes encourages writers in turn to similarly disclose in
> their responses."
>
>
>
> This is continued with : -
>
> "A sentence or two is usually devoted to establishing credibility (for
> example, 'Derek McGhee is from Southampton University and is researching
> the experience of gay men and lesbians in family life') While this tacit
> 'seal of approval' from Dorothy legitimates the subject matter, we would
> reiterate the point made earlier that describing it as a sub-theme
> emphasises its secondary nature, and implicitly suggests that what
> precedes it should be the primary focus of the MO's attention."
>
>
>
> There's me, a silly old lorry driver thinking Dorothy et al is
> pre-empting the question "Who's he and what's he doing." I totally missed
> the insinuation.
>
>
>
> Does the M-O staff really lurk round the reading room waiting to see if
> some researcher goes "Yippee!"?
>
>
>
> I noticed there was no expansion on the point that a negative answer was
> often as valuable as a long positive one.
>
>
>
> I was not surprised about the enjoyment of reading the submissions. But
> of course even when I was small everyone secretly enjoyed page 3 of the
> News of the World. If the British were not obsessed with the "goings on"
> of other people, especially in the bedroom the Sun would have gone broke
> years ago.
>
>
>
> The big surprise to me was the last paragraph. After spending several
> pages telling how the whole thing was carefully orchestrated and directed
> by an archivist better employed by M. I. 6's psychological warfare
> department there is then talk of championing the use of M-O!!!!!
>
>
>
> I certainly hope Dorothy and the M-O crew are not as crafty and
> manipulative as this piece paints them, otherwise it will have totally
> destroyed my belief in my ability to judge people. I didn't know if the
> authors were mates of Dorothy; but just in case they were I forsook the
> initial urge to email my criticism direct to the authors. I ran this past
> her first and was advised to contribute it to the list. Maybe the whole
> thing was written by and for academics who don't have my inside track as
> a contributor.
>
>
>
> A further unrelated point.
>
>
>
> Just got round to the piece on the list re seminar. Tick boxes, forget
> it! First tick box and I, and I think many of my generation would be off.
> Surely the mini-biog shows everything needed for stats except social
> status.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Bob Rust
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------- To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
> Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
>
> leave massobs
> --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
leave massobs
--
|