What Would Foucault Do? I actually find this exchange regarding our
"self-governance," so to speak, to be pretty stimulating--
Within the relative freedom and anonymity of cyberspace, and working within
something of a "frame" or apparatus of this list-serv, people (myself included)
seem to come up with various rules of decorum, which are interestingly based in
terms of form (short, funny responses are not "serious" enough) and content
(responses based on personal anecdote, humor, ostensible puerility)-- not that
these things are ever inseperable.
An internalization of authority, the perfection of non-direct modes of controlling
and limiting our behaviour? That sounds a little too dramatic, but certainly it's
to the point here-- (thinking of the second half of Discipline and Punish,
generally). But the trajectory of this current debate does seem to lend itself to
this sort of thinking-- in all sincerity, what do we think he would make of this
discussion, if that's not too imaginative/hypothetical?
Regards,
James
James Parr
Department of English
University of Virginia
malgosia askanas wrote:
> > THe problem stems from the way the list serv is constructed.
> > IF it were constructed sot that a reply went to the sender
> > and NOT the listserv, then these personal epithets
> > would not be sent to unwanted readers.
>
> So, this is the best you can come up with? I am sorry to say that no, the
> problem does _not_ stem from "the way the listserv is constructed".
> The listserv is not meant to be a vehicle for the kind of scenario that
> Jeremiah declared himself to be uninterested in, where somebody asks for
> a reference, and then people respond to him or her in private whispering the
> answer into her or his ear. It is meant to be a vehicle for public
> discussion, and it is _public_ exchange that it means to serve and facilitate.
> The fact that this public discussion most frequently tends towards "drivel"
> is not the fault of the stup, but of the users of that setup.
>
> -m
"self-governance," so to speak, to be pretty stimulating--
Within the relative freedom and anonymity of cyberspace, and working within
something of a "frame" or apparatus of this list-serv, people (myself included)
seem to come up with various rules of decorum, which are interestingly based in
terms of form (short, funny responses are not "serious" enough) and content
(responses based on personal anecdote, humor, ostensible puerility)-- not that
these things are ever inseperable.
An internalization of authority, the perfection of non-direct modes of controlling
and limiting our behaviour? That sounds a little too dramatic, but certainly it's
to the point here-- (thinking of the second half of Discipline and Punish,
generally). But the trajectory of this current debate does seem to lend itself to
this sort of thinking-- in all sincerity, what do we think he would make of this
discussion, if that's not too imaginative/hypothetical?
Regards,
James
James Parr
Department of English
University of Virginia
malgosia askanas wrote:
> > THe problem stems from the way the list serv is constructed.
> > IF it were constructed sot that a reply went to the sender
> > and NOT the listserv, then these personal epithets
> > would not be sent to unwanted readers.
>
> So, this is the best you can come up with? I am sorry to say that no, the
> problem does _not_ stem from "the way the listserv is constructed".
> The listserv is not meant to be a vehicle for the kind of scenario that
> Jeremiah declared himself to be uninterested in, where somebody asks for
> a reference, and then people respond to him or her in private whispering the
> answer into her or his ear. It is meant to be a vehicle for public
> discussion, and it is _public_ exchange that it means to serve and facilitate.
> The fact that this public discussion most frequently tends towards "drivel"
> is not the fault of the stup, but of the users of that setup.
>
> -m