Laura On Blogging, And...

Laura over at Apt. 11D, has a post on the meaning of blogging (especially argumentative blogs), that I don't entirely agree with.

I have been thinking about the concepts of conversation, and framing metaphor, and leaving defensiveness behind. This contretemps brings it into one kind of focus.

Laura wrote,

But when bloggers personally attack others, who are not public officials or celebrities just private citizens trying to go about their work, this undemocratic creation is deeply troubling. Especially since there is no opportunity to satisfactorily respond. Perhaps if I had a more important blog, I could respond in kind (and provide a link to his blog), but I don’t. My co-author doesn’t have even a little blog like mine, so she has no voice whatsoever.

Another nasty side effect of blogging is that hit counts can go to your head. Occasionally, hit counts can inflate egos creating not only the so-called pundits, but a hundred little bullies. Blogs are not soap boxes for speaking your mind, because bloggers don’t have to respond to hecklers in the audience. Blog readers don’t have the opportunity to hear responses to posts and weigh differing points of view. The heckler has been effectively silenced.

What prompted this is that a man wrote a post critical of Laura's approach to a survey she is conducting, impugning her scholarly abilities.

The post was unfair, insulting, uninformed, and arrogant.

(There's more discussion at Crooked Timber. The post(s) Laura was referring to were probably this one and this one

To be accused of laziness and lack of ability stings....but does it matter? That is to say, why do we care when someone we don't even know personally has a negative response? In the life of the university, academia, the situation Laura describes must be attended to and resolved. But here in the land of the electrons, it really needen't be attended to and resolved. It will be buried under the next thing, and the next, and the next.

Laura says that there was "no opportunity to satisfactorily respond." "Satisfactorily" is the hinge. It is our nature to want to say, "But that's not what I meant!" "You are misrepesenting me!" (or in other situations, not this) "But I would never [be that way] [do such a thing] [have such a thought]" The other's accusations are an injury to our sense of ourselves, and it so stings we can't think.

I can think of at least three ways to respond, all of which may be satisfactory:
One, "masterly inactivity." Walk away. Ignore that person (or blog). The satisfaction is not getting in a name-calling war.
Two, "rebuttal": cut and paste the offensive verbiage and explain in detail why you did what you did. I am not saying to justify yourself, but to outline your reasons. In this case, the rationale behind the survey construction.
Three, "aikido"--using the momentum of the other to move the conversation where you wanted to go in the first place.

And then Laura says, "Blogs are not soap boxes for speaking your mind".

I disagree very strongly. Blogs that are set up to be conversations (and some are), should be that. But other blogs are not meant to be conversations, they are meant to be exactly that, a soap box, meaning someone That is exactly what they can be. There's no committee, no referee, that who controls what I say here. It is not a democracy nor it should be. And in some settings, even the rules of civility need not apply.

Comments

[Robot_Alarm_Clock]

I agree with you disagreeing ; ) Blogs aren't a democracy at all, and these are, of course, the risks we take when we put ourselves and our work out there. On top of that, academics should be used to being critiqued in public.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but it seems to me that the occupant of 11D is overreacting. So what? Someone hated her survey. Let the person have his/her say, respond to it in your blog if you want, and move on. Alternately, one could think constructively and use the complaints to improve the instrument. 25 combined years of experience is impressive, but no infallible, so why not build on the critique? It is perhaps possible that the original critic has a point, even if the expression of that point was painful and taken personally.

In the end, this handwringing about the blogs bothers me, mostly because so much of it has a prescriptive tone. It implies that there should be limits, and that gets under my skin for a variety of reasons.

[curtis]

Well, to begin with, Steven DenBeste's response to the quiz really weren't all that mean-spirited or offensive, in my opinion. I'd read the post days before I realized it had even sparked any debate at all- my first read-through of the post didn't leave me with any question. He was frustrated about the quiz and the way that it seemed to attempt to instantly categorize those to whom it was sent- is that really that offensive of a remark? I read Steven DenBeste regularly, and I have to say, while some of his posts may be taken as offensive, this surely wasn't one of them. His reponse was fairly reasoned and not at all vitriolic. Why would she be offended? It really makes no sense, in my opinion, but perhaps that is just me.

a;sdlkfj,
CS

[liZ]

Some of this discussion reminds me of the old saw (which has various formulations):

"I'm decisive, you are pushy, she is a controlling bitch".

So I think the discussion isn't so much about the actual people involved (laura & denbeste) but perceptions.

I don't worry so much about prescriptiveness, because...I own this space.

[liZ]

Yet more commentary on blogging and civility from Daniel Drezner, wherein which he surveys what other bloggers has to say, and summarizes thusly:

It is undoubtedly true that in the short run, provocative, vitriolic, and/or sloppy writing -- by either bloggers or commenters -- can attract attention, whereas closely reasoned analysis sometimes falls by the wayside. The fact that so many top-notch bloggers have made similar observation about the correlation between hit counts and trolls is indeed disturbing.

The discussion is equally interesting.

aaron started me out looking at DD. Thanks Aaron.