If I might add my two-pennorthworth...
I was pleased with Lawrence's invtervention in general, but I do have some
sympathy for Raju's position - and I also feel that Lawrence did undermine
his own status somewhat by forwarding Mike Kesby's limerick - censorship is
always to avoided but a gentle hint that MK might have liked to reconsider
the wisdom of such a posting might have been a better move - and that Harry
Potter was right to upbraid him for so doing.
My sympathy for Raju arises because a similar thing happened to me on
another mailbase mailing list. I and another couple of respondents were
engaged in a debate involving an exchange of maybe 10 or 12 postings. The
debate was conducted in a passionate and excited manner, but nonetheless in
genuinely attempts at clarifying issues/positions to the benefit of each
other's research.
We continued on-line, partly because we were the only ones posting to a
semi-somnolent list, partly because I am sure that we hoped that others
would get similarly excited and participate. Instead when interventions
from the more senior 'levels of academic training', did occur, to our
surprise and dismay, they sought, successfully as it happens, to squash our
debate altogether. The same sort of sarcastic one-liners were made,
together with outright calls to stop altogether -in particular that we
should just accept complexity and multiple explanations - ie just shut up.
So that was that. However on a third mailing list to which I suscribe a
debate that attracted a similar set of interventions attracted the following
comment from the list moderator (in single quotes >), which cheered me up
and which I think is worth reporting here. The comments (posted publicly,
so therefore not falling under prohibition no.2 listed by LC - which I
endorse completely BTW) were made in response to a call that said that
debates on a list shouldn't be argumentative, but should seek to identify
common ground - more or less where Lawrence came in:
>
>> The model of discourse on this, and most lists, is to begin a debate,
>> find the areas of greatest disagreement, and then enter into a "Yes it
>> is", "No it isn't" exchange. Agreement is never reached and little is
>> learned by either party. Other subscribers can either watch the
>> boxing match, or they can jump into the ring and risk getting punched
>> themselves.
>
>I'm not convinced that the fact of disagreement is going to drive
>people off a list like this, because a certain amount of
>disagreement (overt or implicit, practical or ideological) is part and
>parcel of the experience of social movements. I think,..
>that there might be features of the way we talk that are
>problematic, but I suspect they have more to do with a
>tendency to heroic generalisation than a tendency to disagree.
>
>> There are other lists where productive dialog occurs. They have a
>> different attitude. Areas of agreement are noted and acknowledged.
>> There is an attempt to sympathize with the other viewpoint and to
>> identify where there might be common ground. From there, the area of
>> agreement can be expanded, by considering those areas of disagreement
>> which are least 'charged'. Rather than each side trying to 'defeat'
>> the other, you have two sides, working together, to overcome their
>> common foe: the list of remaining disagreements. Other subscribers
>> are more likely to participate - it's more fun to join folks building
>> something, than to join a fight.
>
>OK, but this assumes that we *are* on the same "side" and our
>major goal is to agree with one another. I'm wary of this kind of
>thing in academia, because it seems to me that it winds up
>producing what's essentially a class-based consensus at the
>expense of other issues that we choose not to raise because they
>aren't our own.
>
>I suspect the same may be true on a mailing list: I don't know that
>we *are* on the same side, and while I think it's important to build
>alliances that doesn't mean just any alliances. One of the easiest
>ways to build alliances, for example, is around the kinds of
>consensus views you identify as needing to be overcome. I agree
>with you on that, but then there are some kinds of consensus that
>actively need to be unpicked, presumably?
>
>...
>
>To be honest, I think moving forward may be something other than
>agreement or disagreement. The question to me would be whether
>there's an engagement with the other person's point of view, or an
>attempt to polarise (harmony is routinely found at the expense of
>absent others).
So while I agree in general with the sentiment's contained in Lawrence's
intervention, I do worry that we don't fall into the opposite trap of
assuming that our major goal IS to agree with one another, and thereby
shutting down debate in that way as well.
What do you think?
Paul
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|