Josephine (and others),
Not to steel the moderator's thunder, but I have some responses to your
thoughts here on the academic nature of this list. This is, of course,
just my perspective as a list member who is primarily a lurker.
Josephine Cavopol wrote:
> if you are refering to the subject matter I posted as an example of what was happening off list, they are all academic subjects that were being discussed by published authors, and some are currently being researched by post Doctoral scientists.
>
Most of us do not consider something academic or not based on the
"subject matter." What we are interested in is in discourse about this
subject motivated by critical analysis and evidence based argumentation.
> granted the discussion subject matter would not be publishable...
> but,..... dont you find it interesting to hear and see what is out
> there, and ask why? How are you going to understand what really
> happens regarding magic and culture if you totally shield yourself
> from its everday 'on the ground' expression?
I understand what you are presenting here, but we have many resources to
go to find this kind of perspective. It is not that we shield ourselves
from it, but that we create a space that is defined by academic
discourse and not this kind of personal perspective. This is valuable
data, you are correct. But an academic e-mail list is not the best
place for generating data. It can cloud the academic discussion too much.
> The brief of this discussion group is 'academic study by students, teachers and practitioners'. Practitioners who come from a non academic setting will not approach the subject matter in an academic way. That does not invalidate their voice: it just means that, through participating and observing, communication mathods can and will be developed. And if people choose not to do that, then it is their loss.
>
Again, this is not to invalidate non-academic voices, but to suggest
that it is inappropriate for this forum. A practitioner should
understand this, as clouding an academic discussion list with
non-academic discussions is kind of like playing your favorite polka on
a tuba while people are trying to conduct a solemn ritual initiation.
This is not to suggest that polkas or tubas are reprehensible means of
expression, but that they are inappropriate for that setting.
> The outbursts and declarations of creed etc have taught me more of how to approach certain material as a writer than any stuffy theoretical approach would have.
>
I'm glad. They have mostly annoyed me. That's okay, I'm used to being
annoyed by discussions on listservs, but I fear they may have alienated
some of my academic colleagues. Many of us have experience of academic
e-lists devolving into communities that are no longer of much use to us
in our work as busy academics unsubscribe because of the level of noise
generated.
> And then comes the question: who gets to decide what is academic or not? most magic
Academics.
> subject matter would not be considered academic. I dont think it should be the subject matter per say, more the approach. If people can address discussion regarding their area of expertise without being defensive, then we have an arena where by learning can occur.
>
And, I may be wrong, but I think what was being questioned was not the
subject matter, but the approach. We're certainly interested in
understanding how the Creed functions for people who participate in the
Mass, but rants and/or celebrations without an adequate grounding in
critical analysis and evidence don't actually help us much at the level
we are looking at things.
Regards,
Grant
|