I've just got back from holiday and there's another whole bunch of
messages about the faults of an initiative someone has taken, in this
case, Jon Pugh's Space of Democracy thing. Now I know Jon (he's in the
same School here at Newcastle, although I don't see him a lot) and I
know for a fact that this initiative is part of a series of
'conversations' he's been organising in all kinds of places and
situations, most of which have been free-access and publicised way
beyond the academy or not within the academy at all.
As seems to be increasingly common on this list, a few people react
immediately to something as if it is somehow a self-contained entity
that encompasses everything that needs to be known about the thing in
question and the person organising it, making accusations of being
'un-self-critical' (which appears to be more than slightly ironic in
some cases) without having bothered to check: 1. what the thing in
question is part of; or 2. what is the stance and record of action the
person involved in organising it.
Whilst some of these knee-jerk postings do result in some more
insightful interactions, it is getting a bit tiresome when people who
claim to be critical researchers fail to do any background research into
what they are criticising. Of course, we've all done this at some time
or other, but I do wonder whether the 'shoot first and ask questions
later' method of argument encouraged by electonic communications is
starting in infect us rather too much and whether in many cases, we
might be better served by stepping back a few paces and thinking a
little first...
David.
|