Re: List Moderation

[Jamie Owen Daniel <jdaniel@xxxxxxx>]

In his rush to turn me into wimpy Habermas so that he can imagine himself
as tough-guy Adorno (or "Teddie," as he prefers), Ken completely misses
the point of my earlier post.  It is ridiculous to suggest that the only
alternatives for a listserv on which people are bound to strongly disagree
with one another are an unmoderated free-for-all (where we all
repressively tolerate posts meant only to prove...nothing, except that the
poster has more invective at hand than interest in the matter under
discussion), and a designated moderator or "person in an administrative
position" who sits up on the mountain and prudishly prevents the rest of
us from reading anything that he/she finds offensive.  Obviously, these
aren't the only options, and the shrill rhetoric of censorship and
surveillance that sets up the terms of the response below does not succeed
in masking the paucity of the assumption that there are only these two
extremes available to us.

On the listserv I mentioned previously, on which a similar flare-up
occurred, the membership of the list, all 350+ of us, decided to
collectively formulate guidelines for how we would conduct our
conversations in cyberspace.  At no point did we feel we needed to or want
to appoint anyone to "clear" what was posted to the list; rather, we spent
several weeks hashing out guidelines that would allow for unrestricted
disagreement without allowing people the option of strangling disagreement
with personal bullying, locker-room insults, etc.  No one was dumped from
the list, and some of those who felt a deep need to trade insults have
continued to do so, one on one.

Since the ideology of unbridled macho individualism was one of the
hallmarks of American culture Adorno most loathed, I find it amazing that
anyone would defend that ideology in the name of Critical Theory.  But I
don't think for a minute that that amazement warrants my attacking the
person who takes that position, only the position itself.  This isn't
"playing nice"--it's engaging.




 On Sun, 23 May 1999, ken wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 1999 11:53:04 -0500 (CDT) Jamie Owen
> Daniel wrote:
>
> > Moderating a list is not at all the same thing as censoring it.
>
> Moderating the list, on the one extreme, would involve a
> single person sitting down with all the messages and passing
> judgement on whether or not they are "worthy" of public
> scrutiny.
>
> On a less extreme edge, it would involve the willingness of
> the list moderator to watch incoming mail with the explicit task
> of safeguarding the list against spam and offense.  In other
> words - a person entrusted with the responsibility to say who
> and what gets posted.
>
> Either way - it amounts to a kind of censorship - a person put
> in an administrative position with the power to say yes or no
> to participation.
>
> > I regret that something that COULD be of immense
> value--i.e., an international conversation on the FFm School--is
> being squandered by a person or persons who want to use it
> instead as a site for self-serving bullying.
>
> Have *you* found the conversation being squandered.  At what
> point was it squandered?  Which concepts where particularly
> useless?  Which expressions did you find offensive?  What is
> being wasted here?  Wasted on who?  The problem with the
> argument of moderation is that it must always be retroactive
> and ad hoc.  It is always in retrospect that certain points of
> view appear to not be important, useful, or worthwhile.  There
> is never an a priori argument that makes any sense.
>
> One cannot determine, in advance, which forms of expression
> are violent.  This is always retroactive.  So when one argues
> for moderation of a list, it isn't the current conversation that is
> to be moderated, rather, it is a conversation in the past that is
> to be censored (ie. it is  tragic that such a violent expression
> of views took place, traces of its existence should be
> eliminated).
>
> I've read all the posts with interest.  Nothing is squandered on
> me.  But that's just me.  Perhaps I shouldn't exist.
>
> > I can say through past experience with another listserv on
> which someone decided to use it as his personal punching
> bag that the majority of people who feel that their time and
> energy are being wasted by having to decide whether every
> post from a list is a serious engagement with the matters at
> hand or simply another opportunity for some resentful person
> to act out in virtual public space DON'T simply use the delete
> key--we retire from the list and take our interest in the Ffm
> School elsewhere.
>
> In other words - listserv participants (does this include you or
> not?) should be spoon fed.  Anything that might not be rapidly
> digestible should be eliminated.  All engagements that are not
> serious (serious as in Adorno?, serious as in Zizek?, serious
> as in Rebecca West?, or serious as in Grocho Marx?) should
> be eliminated.  This is interesting, esp. since it contradicts the
> bulk of Adorno's Aesthetic Theory....  Should listserv's be
> instrumentalized... jargonized for quick consumption and easy
> understanding....
>
> I know what you are getting at.  You simply want participants
> to avoid being overtly hostile and, when they are hostile
> (whatever this means) then they should be willing to take
> responsibility for their actions and words.  Ok.  That makes
> sense.  And sure, in an ideal world, I agree.  But moderation
> isn't the key here and email is a medium where responsibility
> is necessary and impossible.  So there is a paradox.  The
> medium itself reveals the [impossible] idealism of the present
> age.  Simply repressing the contrary elements of the paradox
> isn't going to help.
>
> > The effect of this, then, is to shut down the conversation the
> list was suppose to facilitate. There have been a number of
> issues I and my students would have liked to engage with on
> this list, but none of us (especially the students with limited
> access to university-library computers) has the time to
> download, and then skim, and then delete the mass of
> self-indulgent nonsense that seems to attach itself
> parasitically to every attempt anyone makes to discuss
> anything seriously here.
>
> Isn't this a bit conformist?  I mean, are conversations and bits
> of information to be packaged in an efficient and 'commonly'
> acceptable way? or should there be room for dissent,
> digression, and clowning (not to mention offense, aggression,
> defense, play, earnest jesting, and swearing).  Whose
> commonality?  I remember situations with friends where
> communication was always mediated through insults.  It was
> all very exclusive, as high school tends to be, but you knew
> you were welcome when the first volley of "I hate you, you're
> stupid" hit you square in the face (casually known as the
> 'smoting arena').  Who is to say that this is a more or less
> authentic way of communicating?
>
> Love and hate have a dialectical structure.  Every "I hate you"
> reveals a deep seated love and passion for that object which
> arouses the passions is such a way.  Each insult hurled on
> this list is an open cry, "I care!"  Of course, should all of this
> love be censored? (because its expression is inverted?).
>
> > So, if the list can't be moderated, by which I mean the
> subscribers agree to respect each others' persons even if
> they think each others readings of Adorno, Marcuse etc. are
> "die reine Scheisse," then you can count me and lot of other
> folks out, and continue merely chatting amongst yourselves
> without an audience.
>
> What about those of us we disagree with the perfection of
> Habermas's ideal speech situation?
>
> Love thy neighbour?  I think not.
>
> Teddie once noted that universal love bears the mark of
> apathetic distance.  Is not Sade the truth of Kant?
>
> Isn't the Sadean nightmare what it means to respect each
> others' persons?  Are other people merely commodities that
> love / hate corresponds to on a one to one basis?  Isn't there
> a remainder?
>
> If moderation is to be used, then its supporters should at least
> acknowledge its truth.  List moderation is about power - the
> power to control discourse.  Its aim is idealistic, its means are
> strategic, and it is highly exclusive and relativistic.  It uses
> standard conventions of expression as the norm and
> eliminates and dissent from form (regardless of content).  All
> contradictions are to be eliminated and other those who play
> well with others are to be rewarded.
>
> ken mackendrick
>
>