its a small field, but not a new one, and a lot of lines hae already been drawn, for good or ill
"more the merrier" is fine as a sentiment, but only IF that fits the remit; one could equally say "too many cooks" since in the example originally under discussion, the ASE, then scholars who are not in America who somehow got in (perhaps covertly, or by lying) wouldn't be useful or fully engaged, since a lot of the ASE activity is geared to their conferences and events held there, and the Brits would immeidately give themselves away in any case due to our spelling :)
I beleive it is also a subscription society (the ASE as a whole, not the egroup in particualr) so there is an issue that part of members' dues paid might go towards the cost of running the group, perhaps? Thus the members-only approach is justified on financial grounds. This list is housed on JISC, a system which is paid for by the UK education authorities, however we don't have a uk-only membership. Perhaps we should expel all the non-uk residents, to satisfy the taxpayer? (that is only about 1/128th a serious remark btw, sinc ewe'd lost so very many members)
and the criticisms of any element of exclusivity don't really wash IMO, because they are based on (not anyone in particular saying this, but a sentiment of the effect) "they won't le ME in, and that's wrong, because they won't let MEEEEE in "
and yes to what Sabina said- one of the things in place here in this forum is that we have a fairly high noise ratio, there are a lot of things posted that i am sure don't interest many of the list members, since we are avowedly generalist, covering the entire globe, all of history, and a huge number of disciplines, some 400+ members, and no requirement that you have an academic job... this is all by design - the only people who read ALL the threads would be the moderators (i'm one of the co-founders of the orignal list, btw, and we deliberately made it inclusive, which has generally worked, but sometimes not)
would there be as much complaint if (i'm hoping this is a hypothetical example that doesn't exist, am making it up purely for illustration) if there was a requirement that to join a list for the European Society of Anthropologists of Religion, one had to be based in Europe and be an anthropoligst working in religion. Why can't (for example) US-based philosophy postgraduates join? Or Australian Historians? Because a lot of it is not going to be relevant, and the language in use (anthropology technicals) is likely going to be 'foreign' to an unrelated discipline. While 'more the merrier' is good in some respects, in others it is not, since if every thread is filled with "what does that remark mean?" "i don't understand, but i think you mean X, and that's is rubbish because i think Y" kinda comments that is the way that flame wars often start - somethign we've had very few of here- people join a list based on what they want from it, and if the list members assume that all members will have a certain subject knowledge, and they don't want to read a lot of anthropology 101 material, then why should that be forced on them?
Lists restricted to scholars who hold university positions are also exclusive, but there may be justified reasons; they might exist mainly to catalyse and foster co-operation between researchers to assist them make collaborative funding bids (a central dayjob requirement for most in the university system) and if those funding bids have the criteria that to qualify you must work for a university, then it's a no-brainer to have people on that list who would never fit the bill, since all they will do will be get in the way. Some location-subject lists might also be largely composed of people touting for new jobs, advertising studentships etc, which if you work in another country and another discipline will just be noise to you
specifically 'postgraduate' lists might not want retired Professors joining them, as the Profs could (conceivably) be the louder voices, and intmidate the newer scholars
in some locations, getting closer to our home subjects, it might be career suicide (or personally actually dangerous) to be an 'outed' practitioner, and the safety of a vetted membership in such instances is essential to allow free-er, safer debate on such things, behind the threshold of an entry requirement, and the list's publicly-viewable page is of course NOT going to say "all our members privately do practice X, and inside this seekrit society we discuss it in private" this again hypothetical and not meant to indicate any named online forum under discussion here
some practitioner lists are *hugely* exclusive, in any case.....
plenty of other reasons why list memberships may be limited or refined in some way, many of which are not spelt out explicitly; and i hope this ramble has pointed out that
*just because a list is in some way "exclusive" doesn't mean it is in any way better or worse than a list that isn't. it may just have a different function*
as a scholar of esoteric subjects who has sadly *never* worked in a uni job that is remotely directly relevant to my thesis subject (and given the UK government's recent decimation of humanties funding i probalby never will), and being currently out of a job, i am therefore not elegible to join lists which might have a related-employment criterion. I don't think i'm so great that any list i want to join should waive their rules (for example an employment rule, or where i live) in order to let me in
That's part of the reason we started this list, but in the overt knowledge that here is generalist, and that some folk don't want a general list, as signal-to-noise ration is often high- including this thread, which i am sure a lot of folk are skipping by now.
Debating the entry requirements of another list on this list is also a tad behind-the-back gossipy, and it should say a lot that in the original example, the list mod of the 'limited/criteria' group is also a longtime member of this open and pretty much unlimited group.
You don't have to be in just one.....
Dave E
---------- Original Message
-----------
From: "Anthony H." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:48:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [Pagan Studies] Feature on what rituals
may have sounded like at Stonehenge
> Again, in so small a field attempting to establish itself, isn't
the more the merrier?
>
> I find such generalized reasons applied
to so small, new, and specific a field to be a poor defense. If there is ever a
time to design groups to be dynamic and to allow a greater amount of
communication and awareness, it is most certainly in these tentative, first
steps.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Magliocco, Sabina <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
Considering the great overlap between scholars and practitioners in the field of
Pagan Studies, I don't think these comments are justified.
>
>
There are reasons why members of a professional association might want to have
their own listserve -- among them, the fact that discussion of association
business (as opposed to scholarship) can be boring to non-members, and that
certain discussions (e.g. the nomination of officers, formation of committees,
etc.) are confidential until released to the general membership.
>
>
Best,
>
>
Sabina Magliocco
>
Professor
>
Department of Anthropology
>
California State University - Northridge
>
[log in to unmask]
>
________________________________________
>
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Amy Hale [[log in to unmask]]
>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:27 PM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [Pagan Studies] Feature on what
rituals may have sounded like at Stonehenge
>
>
Actually, Anthony, there are a number of academic practitioners on that
list.
>
>
Best,
>
Amy
>
>
Amy Hale, PhD
>
Department of Humanities
>
St. Petersburg College
>
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Anthony H. <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> I do find it interesting that scholars who study Pagan practices and
their
>
> history/anthropology would firmly shut the door on those who wish to
know
>
> more or refine their knowledge about their own practice.
>
>
>
> Those on the outside define those on the inside?
>
>
>
> Strict criteria based on 'scholarly activity' in this case reeks of
a
>
> superficiality (judging membership on the status of the user rather than
the
>
> quality of his/her content) merely lends itself to base elitism and
simple
>
> snobbery.
>
>
>
> There are few enough attempting to validly study and carve out
viable
>
> programs in all forms of esoterica. Leaving learned and politely
interested
>
> practitioners as an untapped resource may prove to be academic
suicide.
>
>
>
> Anthony H.
>
> http://exeter.academia.edu/AnthonyHoltberg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:14 PM, kaostar <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
>>
>
>> academia.edu; yes
great resource/networking place
>
>>
>
>> closed groups, open groups, inbetweengroups; it's like the height
markers
>
>> at
>
>> Disneyland or the maximum age to join the armed forces, they do that
for a
>
>> reason. People might not like the particular reasons for any
entry
>
>> criteria,
>
>> but there's no point in banging on a door that is already labelled
as "if
>
>> you
>
>> are x or are not y then you don't get in". Join the ones you
can, ignore
>
>> the
>
>> rest, and if you do insist on forcing your way into a group that
avowedly
>
>> doesn't want you it's going to be painful and isolating anyhow,
so what's
>
>> the
>
>> point?
>
>>
>
>> a paraphrase of the entry criteria for here is pretty much 1. ability
to
>
>> discuss in academic fashion, and 2. not be an arse, and we are
rewarded
>
>> with a
>
>> huge, diverse, proactive, supportive community that is 99.9% a delight
to
>
>> be
>
>> part of
>
>>
>
>> rogue scholar i like!
>
>>
>
>> "Independent scholar" used to mean "independently
wealthy so can take the
>
>> time
>
>> to do research for the pure pleasure"
>
>>
>
>> nowadays it is closer to "under- or unemployed academic, often
poorer than
>
>> a
>
>> church mouse (any denomination of)"
>
>>
>
>> Dave E (of the latter form of IS)
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>
>> From: Khem Caigan <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> Sent: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:59:29 -0400
>
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [Pagan Studies] Feature on
what
>
>> rituals may have sounded like at Stonehenge
>
>>
>
>> > On 9/14/2011 3:17 PM, Charlie Farrow wrote:
>
>> > >
>
>> > > I wasn't aware that it was a list that belonged to a
particular
>
>> > > institution nor that it was hidden from the riff raff. It
sounded
>
>> > > interesting in terms of the material that was being forwarded
here and
>
>> > > seemed to imply that independent scholars and people with
genuine
>
>> > > research interests might be welcome, but that's fine, I
was mistaken.
>
>> > > I
>
>> > > shall creep back under my rock knowing myself to be a
want-wit
>
>> > > hoddypeak
>
>> > > and quote Monty Python "How shall we fuck off oh great
one?"
>
>> >
>
>> > A lot of doors firmly shut; still others are wide open.
>
>> >
>
>> > The folks at the *National Counsel of Independent
Scholars*
>
>> > ( http://www.ncis.org/ )were kind enough to disabuse me
of
>
>> > /my/ notion of what an "independent scholar" is after I
had
>
>> > joined.
>
>> >
>
>> > The term "outsider scholar" is taken. Until something
better
>
>> > comes along, "rogue scholar" will just have to do
;)
>
>> >
>
>> > rogue scholar
>
>> > @UrbanDictionary
>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/5tsosds
>
>> >
>
>> > For purposes of networking, allow me to recommend Academia.edu
:
>
>> >
>
>> > http://academia.edu/
>
>> >
>
>> > Congenial environment, with lots of friendly scholars from
all
>
>> > around the globe.
>
>> >
>
>> > Cors in Manu Domine,
>
>> >
>
>> > ~ Khem Caigan
>
>> > <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> >
>
>> > "Heat and Moisture are Active to Generation;
>
>> > Cold and Dryness are Passive, in and to each Thing;
>
>> > Fire and Air, Active by Elementation;
>
>> > Water and Earth, Passive to Generation."
>
>> >
>
>> > *Of the Division of Chaos*
>
>> > -Dr. Simon Forman
>
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Magic is the highest most absolute and divine knowledge of
natural
>
> philosophy advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a
right
>
> understanding of the inward and occult vertue of things, so that true
agents
>
> being applied to proper patients, strange and admirable effects will
thereby
>
> be produced; whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers
into
>
> nature, they because of their skill know how to anticipate an effect
which
>
> to the vulgar shall seem a miracle."
>
>
>
> - Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis, Preface from Harl. 6483
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
"Magic is the highest most absolute and
divine knowledge of natural philosophy advanced in its works and
wonderful operations by a right understanding of the inward and occult
vertue of things, so that true agents being applied to proper patients,
strange and admirable effects will thereby be produced; whence
magicians
are profound and diligent searchers into nature, they because of their
skill know how to anticipate an effect which to the vulgar shall seem a
miracle."
>
> - Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis, Preface from Harl. 6483
>
------- End of Original Message
-------
