On 10 Dec 2011, at 08:55, Ken Friedman wrote:

> Dear Gunnar, Andrew, Keith, and Rosan,
>
> Thanks for your replies and comments on GK van Patter.

I have quoted only selected parts of Ken's post in order to respond to  
specific points:

> As I see it, Andrew is mistaken in his judgment of Rosan Chow’s post.
> Andrew argues that Rosan’s intention was to challenge GK’s ideas,

I do not recollect arguing any such thing. I merely attempted to argue  
that Rosan appeared to me making a valid generalisation from a  
particular, if hypothetical case, to a general one. If it is sensible  
to be sceptical about the credentials and activities of publishers, is  
it not equally sensible to be also alert to the same issues concerning  
organisations and methodologies? To characterise such an argument as  
'silly' seems, from my experience, a surprisingly un-Friedman like  
descent from argument to epithet.

> Silly is the least controversial statement one can make
> about an argument this flawed.

. . . Surely, "this argument is flawed" would be exactly the response  
expected between members of this list?

> Andrew may wish to criticize GK and Humantific,

Again, may I re-iterate: My criticism was of the language of GK's  
post, and of him to the extent that he utilised such language. I have  
no criticism, and indeed, at the time of writing, no opinion  
whatsoever to offer on Humantific. I made a point that such language  
would predispose me to approach Humanitifics activities with cautious  
scepticism should I ever attempt to become sufficiently familiar with  
the organisation and its activities to reach a judgement.

> but Rosan never
> actually criticizes GK’s ideas. Instead, she makes accusations through
> innuendo, and now an attack on what she labels “coercive persuasion
> and against academic values.” I’m still a bit puzzled on just how it
> is that GK is able to coerce anyone, having no mechanism of control
> similar to the mechanisms available to cult leaders in Lifton’s
> analysis. Elsewhere, Lifton specifies eight mechanisms of thought
> control and coercive persuasion. GK uses none of these.

I do not want to get involved in defending Rosan's arguments on her  
behalf, and I am certainly not so naive as to believe that innuendo is  
always absent from academic argument. But looked at in another light,  
Rosan's argument is simply a hypothetical: If 'x' is a case for  
concern, might it not be hypothetically possible that 'y' might fall  
under the same criteria? Without the use of hypotheticals we would  
find progress in critical thought very difficult.

Lifton is only one authority on cultic behaviour, which is why I was  
careful to offer my own definitions in my own post, being conscious  
that it is a controversial category. Eg, there is controversy as to  
what falls into, or outside it. Nevertheless, even taking Lifton as  
sole arbiter, I am afraid I have to disagree sharply with you, having  
detected signs of at least three of Lifton's 'mechanisms' in Mr Van  
Platter's language:

"Three further aspects of ideological totalism are "sacred science,"  
"loading of the language," and the principle of "doctrine over person.""

Lifton 1996, http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study_lifton2.htm

I refer readers to Lifton's paper for his elaboration of those terms,  
and invite them to make their own judgements as to whether they  
describe issues analagous to those I raised.

Even if one does not see any correspondence, I feel it is naive to  
dismiss the possiblity that forms of language, if not consciously  
examined, deconstructed, and resisted can easily result in 'coercive  
control'. Surely that is a very significant reason for the very  
existence of the tradition of critical thought, and why we all argue  
about it with such intensity?

The only reason I originally weighed into this argument at all, was  
the language of GK VanPlatten's post, which I personally found  
intolerably rude, arrogant and aggressive, and displaying, as I tried  
to explain, some patterns of thought and language which I found highly  
disturbing. I understand that earlier, one or two members may have  
been a little offhand in their characterisation of some of  
Humantific's activities, but I still don't think that justfied such an  
outburst. While it was not directed at me, I cannot help feeling that  
if someone is prepared to be that rude to other members of the list,  
could I not also expect the same treatment? (Yes, I have a certain  
identification with the 'cult of Phd Design' :-)

Should I apologise as Susana de Luz suggests? I don't believe so. We  
are no strangers to the hard knocks school of debate on this list, as  
I am not the first to point out, but I don't think a post which could  
be broadly characterised as saying: "I know what I'm talking about and  
you don't and by the way one of you teaches in a crap school and  
should be fired" is really the level of discourse we expect around  
here. I am not about to be shifted from that perception any time soon  
I fear. And Susana, if that sort of thing is what passes for rhetoric  
and debate in 7th grade these days, I am truly sorry about the state  
of your education system (But that's another rant for another day!)

To conclude, I would like to say that I feel rather conflicted about  
being involved in this argument at all. I was myself at one time, very  
peripherally involved in the development of the tradition of ideas  
which form the hinterland to 'co-creation' and the creation of  
collaborative environments for design. (Anyone who knows the work of  
John Chris Jones, and in particular, his 'dialogic method' of writing  
will understand how I came to find myself in that position. -See, if  
interested: Jones, 2000, The Internet and Everyone', Ellipsis).  
Consequently, my instinct is that if someone has found a way of  
getting industries and institutions to take these ideas seriously, and  
is able to make a living out of it, that is potentially hopeful. Also,  
while I am personally sceptical of the necessity or indeed future  
possibility of copyright in intellectual property of any kind, I have  
no problem with someone deciding that for them, commercial  
confidentiality and personal sensitivities mean limits to the sharing  
of data. So I really do not share any of the implied criticisms of  
Humantific for possibly being 'insufficiently academic' or  
'commercial', or for wanting to keep a few cards face down on the  
table. Given the levels of disclosure in recent posts, and Ken's  
reports, I am also willing to believe these criticisms may well be  
unfounded.

It was all about the language . . . and, of course, the discourse.

Andrew J King