[Previous entry: ""] [Main Index] [Next entry: "In Progress: Buildings"]

01/12/2006 Archived Entry: "Discussions"

The Girl:: I don't know what the hell you are talking about on your blog. Sometimes you just start yelling at someone for no reason.
Me: I'm creating a character.
The Girl: Who?
Me: Grumpy guy.
The Girl: Isn't that already you?
Me: Maybe. McLuhan writes that in the age of media, we no longer want jobs. We want roles. I'm living out some roles in cyberspace.
The Girl: Whatever.
Me: Remember when Case is seeing through Molly's eyes in Neuromancer? Isn't the weblog, to some degree, like that?
The Girl: Ok. I've got stuff to do.
Me: I read somewhere that the New Yorker's well known cartoon, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog," makes more money for the magazine than any other cartoon. Entertainment reveals current attitudes, McLuhan also notes. The metaphoric "dog" is what we all find ourselves becoming as we create these spaces. This is why I find anonymous blogging silly. It resists allowing an attitude to form, one which is shaped through cyberspace by, let's say, entertainment, but obviously by other cultural forces as well. In the end, all the anonymous blogs sound the same. The only identity that they've played with is a homogenous one. I'm not calling for some kind of Philip Roth style of blogging, but an inquiry into the roles we play, but often fear assuming when we cling too dearly to literate values.
The Girl: Keep being Grumpy guy. I'm sure your readership will drop to zero. And why are you making me sound so unsupportive???
Me: It's a character I created for you as well.

Posted by c-m @ 01/13/2006 08:55 PM EST

"I'm not calling for some kind of Philip Roth style of blogging, but an inquiry into the roles we play, but often fear assuming when we cling too dearly to literate values."

For what it's worth, I like Grumpy Guy and all the other characters here and how they're used to explore media(ted) selves.

Posted by John @ 01/13/2006 05:53 PM EST

"Sometimes. I don't believe, though, that it is the big deal it is made out to be. This isn't the CIA. The persecution complex is a bit too much, "comp mafia." There are greater risks than writing a blog.

Only say what you can back up. Be prepared to defend yourself. Don't be stupid. Same rules for any kind of public writing."

Okay, here is the deal, I have seen -- first hand -- folks in academia suffer consequences from speaking out and disagreeing, EVEN when they can defend themselves and back themselves up all the way to Pluto. Just because a person has ample supporting evidence and logic does not mean that senior colleagues and superiors will openly embrace that logic -- there are plenty of illogical, differently-logical tenured folks out there thanks to the perceived security & untouchablity of tenure itself. And to think that there is not rampant, illogical territorialism in academia ... And as was oft-discussed last summer when that Chronicle article first appeared, any public representation of a rich private life beyond academia can bring out the most illogical jealousy and other related emotions, including harsh judgments. And there is nothing that academics seem to do better than judge, judge and then judge some more. Perhaps when some folks adopt anonymity, it's also a matter of protecting their private realm from the harsh & often illogical judgments.

All said so as to say, yes, there are greater risks than writing a blog -- risks such as directly, non-anonymously addressing the criticism and perceived problems to those in authority in the privacy of an office, where noone else can hear and observe. Been there, done that. Also have had so-called private emails addressing issues circulated -- without my knowledge at the time -- amongst an insular circle of tenured folks without my permission. Privacy and secrecy are power in academia.

I myself happen to love Sunshine laws -- and Sunshine blogs. Throw open all of the windows and the doors and air out the old, stale institutions. It's not always persecution complex happening.

By the way, any anonymous academic blog that comp mafia might have does not partake in kvetching about immediate circumstances. There's a big, big world out there beyond academia and plenty to comment upon.

Posted by comp mafia @ 01/13/2006 02:31 PM EST

"Might homogeneity also reflect universal concerns about problems everyone encounters yet formerly could not speak about without repercussions? It's the universal unconscious emerging in mass, perhaps."

Sometimes. I don't believe, though, that it is the big deal it is made out to be. This isn't the CIA. The persecution complex is a bit too much, "comp mafia." There are greater risks than writing a blog.

Only say what you can back up. Be prepared to defend yourself. Don't be stupid. Same rules for any kind of public writing.

Posted by jeff @ 01/13/2006 11:49 AM EST

First you say this, 'This is why I find anonymous blogging silly. It resists allowing an attitude to form ..."

And then you say this, "Attitude?
Eh. Sounds pretty homogenous to me."

So, you really mean that "It resists allowing anything but a homogenous attitude to form ..."????

Yes, many academic bloggers have a penchant for kvetching yet that could also be the release of the repressed since many of them might lose their jobs if they kvetched under their real names -- you think?

And I think that you might be factoring out the general repression of some senior faculty members at some institutions who don't particularly like for all departmental matters be laid bare and could potentially retaliate against those who do that. They do exist, you know. Or who even just weirdly resent that their often-younger colleagues have complicated personal ives beyond the insitution. What was that article last summer in the Chronicle by the midwestern -- what a stereotype -- senior, ancient faculty member who said that he and his snoopy colleagues conducted google searchs on their candidates?

And academia is not the only profession wherein bloggers take shelter in anonymity, right?

All that said, agreed, there is boredom to be found after repeatedly reading some of the academic blogs out there. You quickly find similar thematics beaten to death and that you wouldn't want to be in their shoes or near their shoes. Maybe the problem is repetition not the lack of attitude. Like I said, an excess of attitude, even if homogenous, seems to abound.

Might homogeneity also reflect universal concerns about problems everyone encounters yet formerly could not speak about without repercussions? It's the universal unconscious emerging in mass, perhaps.

By the way, I am never impressed -- I'm a contrarian by nature.

McLuhan and Stone -- yet how is it possible to assume any interactive identity online -- even if anonymous -- without somehow having one's RL identity reshaped in the process? And aren't people often trying out new identities online because they perceive risks to acting out those identities in real life?

Posted by compmaifa @ 01/13/2006 11:35 AM EST

Attitude?
Eh. Sounds pretty homogenous to me. The "awful" lives of academics, political sides in the never ending binary, I try to write everyday, silly names for people I don't want to identify.... snooze.

Sorry to let you down there, comp mafia. But you've been here before. You've heard my bit. Just not impressed. And when I say literate, I'm thinking in the McLuhanist sense, the nature of homogenous thinking. Not a Stone expert, but I think there's a connection there to McLuhanist ideas, no?

Posted by jeff @ 01/12/2006 07:22 PM EST

but an inquiry into the roles we play, but often fear assuming when we cling too dearly to literate values.

Huh?

I assume that you have read Allucquere Rosanne Stone's *The War of Desire and Technology ...*.

All sorts of experimental inquiring going on out there into the assumption of virtual identities ...

And lots of attitude out there with anonymous blogs -- often more attitude than in RL. Sometimes too much attitude.

Posted by c-m @ 01/12/2006 06:14 PM EST