Bloggy blog blog

  Humor 
  Originally uploaded by arnold_nicholas.

It seems, several years into the blog phenomenon, few have pondered much about the medium itself.

In the previous post's comments, it would seem commenters would have Long Sunday as some sort of peer-reviewed journal, demanding, then, the sort of analyses expected by them.  Presumably, every post should be around 7000 words. 

Of course no one will suggest this, so criticism comes in on entries heavily theoretical, but given the very format, necessarily without the ability to 'back them up'.  I don't pretend to show you the links between Baudrillard and Lacan in a post, and even less in the COMMENTS TO A POST, which is where my analysis can be found.  But that's not the point.  Is there not something interesting, even liberating, about a bunch of ideas thrown in together?  (Why else read Baudrillard, McLuhan, etc...?)

Instead, I seek to probe, to open up an avenue of thought you have the choice of entering, or not, just as I might or might not when passing by the posts of other people.  I certainly avoid posts and bloggers generally that don't probe at all, rather remaining safe under the cover of already established viewpoints.

If we are to naively think this some sort of peer-reviewed journal, the language used in talking about other people's posts isn't one I recognize from any peer review process.  It is completely unhelpful, and only renders this blog (potentially) irrelevant.  A bunch of academics whining about jargon -  who cares?  Either go with the probe or don't.

Blog entries, like all good probes, should have a sense of humour.  They shouldn't take themselves too seriously, precisely because the readers aren't going to take them too seriously, that is, won't really read them.  Blog posts shouldn't be taken as some sort of definitive viewpoint, much less the comments to a post (which, again, is where my analysis can be found).

Total seriousness is important, of course, but for peer-reviewed journals!  And, again, this is not it!

(If anyone cares, and I doubt they do, my work, much of which has gone through the peer review process, locates itself at the very Real - yes, I did capitalize it, perhaps it is the German in me - intersection of Zizek and Baudrillard.)

Comments

[RIPope]

I'm here more and more agreeing with Zizek's statement that our attitude towards cyberspace should not simply be seen as some sort of perverse immersion into the maternal Thing, but also as a kind of hysteria. In front of the screen we ask: what am I for this Other?

More fundamentally, what kind of Other is this? At this point, as Zizek does NOT argue, perversion and hysteria meet.

It seems like a lot of this talk is careerist in nature. What do we have here - a bunch of grad students, anxious regarding their future hiring committees, trying to protect/create their turf? Hysteria can but be the result. (Who is reading? How will this be recorded? What are the consequences? Am I even present?)

One is tempted to provide a political economy approach: faced with too few jobs (the boomers not retiring), cyberspace provides an outlet, and an imaginary battleground.

The irony is that we waste our time here, instead of reading each other's actual papers, or, indeed, writing them. Words wasted. Feeding the economy.

[Adam Kotsko]

Members of hiring committees routinely read comments at Long Sunday, particularly the longer threads.

(I'm trying to think of an appropriate way to deploy an analogy between Piggy's "specs" and theoretical paradigms... it's just not coming.)

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Charles, yes, I spent too much time refining it, I guess.

RIPope:

Scott, your argument is so completely divorced from anything approaching reality to even begin to make sense of it would be to improperly validate it.

Do you mean "reality" or "Reality"? Because I'm certainly divorced from the latter. (Not that you'd think so, but that's my point.)

You might not, of course, ever have an original thought in your life.

C'mon everybody, pony up. You have to admit that some theorists do, in fact, conform to the adolescent post-Romantic stereotype who haunts our respective local coffee house. This obsession with originality for the sake of originality is, frankly, pathetic. No, RIPope, I may never have an original thought in my life; I may make truthful, incisive observations about the world in which I live or the one which I describe, but I'll never have "an original thought." Oh, and Operation Ivy is so much better than Rancid, but The Clash is better than both.

And Scott, if career ambition is what drives you through these posts, don't you think you might be wasting your time 'finding' the assumptions within a 200 word (comment to a) post? Is that something you can add to a CV?

Originality, it seems, doesn't require intelligence. Or maybe it's that, after years of not working with it, you just don't know what to do with evidence. Look, let my put this to you plainly: I value thought, and inasmuch as I believe that it's necessary for a successful career in academia, then I'm a careerist. You don't think, you allude. You don't argue, you evade. Perhaps you do more in your peer-reviewed work--I have my doubts, but let's not deal with the evidence--but I think that characteristics like "attention to detail," "the ability to argue," "treatment of source material" &c. are something one possesses or not.

You don't seem to possess them--you prefer to declaim, to cite additional authors who make your argument for you, and to discuss your own brilliance and/or originality whenever you're challenged. (The irony!) That makes you a pompous, "intellectual" coward. Now, you could argue "But I only behave like this online!" Fair enough. I don't believe it, but fair enough.

Finally, this:

All you can do, in the most insidious and rhetorical of tones, is continually pretend that you are the protector of learning and open minds.

The implied opposite here is so foul, I can't noxious, I can barely bring myself to confront it. So let me just say: Yes, I pass the mantle of "protector of learning and open minds" to the guy with the self-confirming, unfalsifiable system and the chutzpah to never admit it. Let him be your beacon.

[RIPope]

But Scott, the point to that last quote of mine in your comment is that, while you pretend to protect free thought, you effectively close it down. You're going off about a prefaced comment to a post. There's a tinge of absurdity here. For whatever reason you have an incessant drive to attack me, without ever actually addressing the points. You say I am blinded by Lacan, but you never address the Lacanian readings themselves, nor even address how they conflict with yours. You have never really ventured beyond a "Lacan is dogmatic - you are Lacanian - you are bad", however much you might protest that you are, somehow, open to Lacanian readings.

If you aren't going to address the actual issues, there is no real thought involved. Just rhetoric - which you clearly enjoy. I can only wonder why you prefer to spend your day going off about a comment to a post - without really addressing it - instead of working on your own stuff, whatever it is.

And yes, I certainly do think there is a difference between online behaviour and otherwise. Though most seem to think this a continuation of the seminar room, I've never seen people act towards each other like this in such a room. Flaming. In a seminar room people try to understand where the other people are coming from, while here you misquote something and hold it up as indicative of 'all that evil theory dogma' you see everywhere else. No doubt this is an outlet for frustration or annoyance you feel within the real university (no, not capitalized, I'm talking about reality). For whatever reason I've become the lightning rod. If we were sitting across from each other in a room I doubt things would have progressed in this manner.

And if one is simply attacking people, it's rather easy to pretend one is doing precisely what one does in the university generally. It's much harder to pretend this when one is posting or commenting 'probes' or 'ideas' - for they, to achieve the criterion of 'truth' you seek, need much more time and space with which to do so... So, for those that do seek original ideas (and I do not mean 'original' in any naive sense, but I do seek to open up new avenues of thought, or to look at the world askew), this medium must be used differently... I'm not saying I've accomplished much here. It seems every time I try, this sort of thing happens. And I wonder what's the point.

But it's funny. Hundreds of people read these blogs every day and don't comment. Maybe they read them in the way I imagine. Maybe I should just go ahead and not give a hoot what some commenters might say. Who knows.

Hysteria.

And why the Op Ivy reference, btw? Funny, I've got an Op Ivy tattoo...

'Total seriousness is important, of course, but for peer-reviewed journals! And, again, this is not it!

(If anyone cares, and I doubt they do, my work, much of which has gone through the peer review process, locates itself at the very Real - yes, I did capitalize it, perhaps it is the German in me - intersection of Zizek and Baudrillard.)'

Peer Reviewed Journals.

Almost as Important as the Real.

'my work, much of which has gone through the peer review process, locates itself at the very Real'

should read:

'my work, much of which has gone through the peer review process, locates itself at the very Careerism' which is involved in reappearing on blogs, decrying them but not being able to resign from them.

You are just advertising yourself in a particularly vulgar fashion, a little preen and pirouette here, a desire for grand jete as peer-reviewed journalist, and a retreat into tutu...(so where are the 32 fouettes?)

Literally Incredible that you would accuse The Others of Careerism (even they all deserve it.)

Oh, how Peer-Reviewed Journalist one is!

How capable one is of using blogs for Real Ads!

Your retreat into Zizek and failure to understand anything of Baudrillard's recklessness and lack of interest in public opinion, reduced to a kind of attempted replica of his own style is Real Careerism with a Capital Advert. Zizek is strictly careerism.

'locates itself at the very Real - yes, I did capitalize it, perhaps it is the German in me - intersection of Zizek and Baudrillard.)'

This is the one accurate thing you have said herein, because the 'very Real (gee whiz, neat-oh jet!) intersection of Zizek and Baudrillard' is a little hollow place reserved for only you in your extensive Peer Review Process that you learned how to do at the Real of the European Graduate School.

I don't think Baudrillard knows a thing about your intersection. You don't know anything about Baudrillard, as that would take guts. Stick with Zizek, I was all wrong about this a while back, he's your man, all cowardice, bluff and Careerism.

[patrick]

The above overtly Original comment was posted by patrick

[RIPope]

What's the point of this attack? I just don't get it. I mentioned `peer-review' precisely because of attacks like this, particularly since the one at T&E deals with Zizek and Lacan at length. Since all these attacks suggest that I have not grasped Lacan - without showing how - it seemed rather natural to suggest people look there for the 7000 words they seek...

Now with such an undeserved attack I probably shouldn't answer further, but you're right about Zizek's careerism, or, perhaps better put, endless commodity-object production.

[RIPope]

I might note that every time - however few and far between - someone has actually asked me to clarify my usage of Lacanese, I have done so. If we are actually interested in understanding each other's different ways of thinking, this would seem to be the path towards it.

To simply say one doesn't allow for different ways of thinking, without even beginning to attempt understanding of my own, well, the contradiction is obvious. I'd be happy to work through various things with others here, though that, unfortunately, is not what most commenters are interested here. Something else is on the agenda.

Sadly, I've seen it a million times over, and not just in the blogosphere, even if here it takes on a new dimension - without responsibility.

[Craig]

Richard - I say this because we're doctoral students at the same school: did you do any coursework at all? I say this quite seriously. I highly doubt the pedagogical environment is that different in C&C than it is in SPT, sociology or political science. I most certainly snapped at people who I felt said stupid things and I've seen others do the same - students and faculty alike.

[RIPope]

Yes, of course, I've done all my coursework. And I can't seriously believe you don't see a difference between this and the seminar room. Did you snap and refuse to listen further, stare at the wall for a while, until you decided to snap back further? Have you got along well with your colleagues? Really...

(DISCLAIMER: capitalized only because of its place in sentence)

[patrick]

'What's the point of this attack? I just don't get it. I mentioned `peer-review' precisely because of attacks like this, particularly since the one at T&E deals with Zizek and Lacan at length. Since all these attacks suggest that I have not grasped Lacan -'

You did not need Peer Review to prove yourself here, you needed to prove yourself here by saying something worth listening to or abdicating, which could prove you'd put your money where your mouth is.

The ones who say they want you to prove that you have grasped Lacan don't really care about that anyway, as they are quite as careerist as you said they were. The problem is that so are you--or so determined to think about the Real that you manage to define it as an unreal you which engages while pointing out how you have remained aloof. Ultimately, it is you who have made this personal, because you have at least some residual interest in proving yourself in these parts. It is inexcusable that you should care. And it is that caring for something so worthless that proves that you do not understand Baudrillard.

Chevy Chase:
Real: pronounced Ray Al. Not Reeel. Royal. Kingly. Del Rey. A display of absolutism chastising lèse-majesté, followed by the constitutionally mandated rebuke from the judiciary. Zidane's gesture introduces the royal, the regal, the Real, from Ray Al Ma Dreeed.

Emily Latella:
Oh. Well. Never mind.

[RIPope]

Patrick, you're absolutely right that a true Baudrillardian wouldn't care, but Baudrillard worked long and hard to achieve his aloofness, didn't he?

[Kenneth Rufo]

Richard, why don't you just post a pdf of your Zizek/Lacan paper and submit that as your defense?

And I agree with Patrick: Baudrillard takes guts.

[Charles]

It seems, several years into the blog phenomenon, few have pondered much about the medium itself.

Can this be serious?

Richard, why don't you just post a pdf of your Zizek/Lacan paper and submit that as your defense?

Yes, please do. And let's leave Charles his comments too. Thanks.

[RIPope]

Sadly, it is dead serious, at least when it comes to these parts.

The idea that I need to defend the comment to a blog post is a little odd, and can only suggest that there aren't, in fact, open minds here... Or at least aren't many who comment, which might be something altogether different.

[Bryan]

I've been lurking here for quite some time, but only now have I felt a real need to speak out.

Those who share Scott Eric Kaufman's view are far too critical. RIPope is right when he suggests that Long Sunday is not meant to be a peer-reviewed publication. I've always thought of blogging as a sort of sketchpad; it's where ideas can be formed and maybe not entirely coalesce. It's like having a public notebook. It's good to be challenged, but one shouldn't expect a blog (or its comments) to be the place to go for in-depth critical studies.

Don't get me wrong, I respect Kaufman quite a bit, but where RIPope might be lax in his blog-related critical work, Kaufman is particularly dogmatic. The first approach shows a lack of hard thinking and the second shows a lack of an open mind. Las time I checked, we're not here to instruct or to preach, we're here to have conversations, otherwise we wouldn't bother having comment threads.

I'm not really sure entirely where these thoughts are going, but this whole flame war is getting a bit ridiculous. We're all supposed to be intellectuals here, right? How about we act like it and start having dialogue instead of pedantic bickering?

[Kenneth Rufo]

Here's what I don't get. No one has thought seriously about blogs because there is flaming and a misunderstanding about the proper use of the medium? Umm, in all seriousness, why isn't flaming the proper nature of the blog? The same phenomenon occurs in all other aspects of society, but only for its online version did we need to invent a new term.

[Kenneth Rufo]

And Richard, are you going to post the paper or not? I'd like to read it. Pdf or doc or (preferably) odt work fine for me.

[Bryan]

Umm, in all seriousness, why isn't flaming the proper nature of the blog? The same phenomenon occurs in all other aspects of society, but only for its online version did we need to invent a new term.

I think the difference is that in person, we're more apt to be kinder to one another. At the very least, we treat each other with a bit more respect. Online people tend to be unspeakably rude in ways that would be absolutely unacceptable in person. I think the Lifehacker comments policy (adopted by Feministe) says it best:

[...] tongue-lashings from condescending smartypants will go over as well on someone's blog as they would in that someone's living room. Expect to get shown the door in the form of the delete button. When fact-checking, pointing out a typo or dead link or asserting a dissenting opinion, do it in a respectful, friendly way.

[RIPope]

Flaming as the proper nature of the blog - well, let's hope not. And as Bryan notes there certainly is a reason for the new term here, since without actually being in the same room the sense of, or need for, responsibility is lost.

Yep I'll post the paper at CPROBES when I get a chance.

[Kenneth Rufo]

Oh come now, we really think it's about physical copresence generating more kindness, or rather less aggression? If that's your thinking about the medium, you can keep it. I remember the Internet scholarship of the mid 90s as well as anyone.

[Bryan]

Kenneth: It's much easier to be a prick when you don't have to look into the eyes of whomeever it is you're flaming. I've seen plenty of things online that I could never imagine being said to someone's face. "Kindness" isn't necessarily the word to use - pricks are pricks - but there's a tendency to conduct one's self in a slightly more civil manner, particularly with people one has had little to no contact with. There is also a diminished lack of awkwardness - no dealing with the aftermath of what's been said.

I think that particularly those who write under a pseudonym are embolded by the lack of personal contact (and the minimal risk of identification) and are more likely to say thing they wouldn't say to you in a million years face-to-face. Without a real life reputation to defend, there's no need to hold your tongue.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

I might note that every time - however few and far between - someone has actually asked me to clarify my usage of Lacanese, I have done so.

"Clarify," perhaps, but "justify"? Never. Now, you may see Long Sunday as a place to twiddle your Lacanian thumbs—I disagree. When I see unsophisticated Lacan blather, I call people on it. I may seem to attack you more than most. There must be a reason for that...

...in addition to which, there's the arrogant, high-handed way you initiate and carry on conversations. Anyone who denies the immanent explanatory power of Lacan is an "academic charlatan" and so on. If you want to chalk that up to online triumphalism, fine, but when you inflate yourself so, you're asking to be popped.

Sadly, I've seen it a million times over, and not just in the blogosphere, even if here it takes on a new dimension - without responsibility.

You lament the lack of responsibility, yet you refuse to treat the medium responibly: "I vomit probes, for you to do with what you will!" How is that an intellectually responsible position? (Also, how does it not introduce an unsavory power dynamic between vomiter and vomitee?)

Craig, while not at the same institution as you two, I can say that I've taken both types of courses at UCI: charged critical theory seminars in which points were feverishly argued; bland courses in the post-post-human in which everyone added a little something to what the person said before...and which, in the end, seemed intent on making people feel good about themselves and the wishy-washy thought they peddled. The latter classes were a waste, an exercise in creating original monstrosities which couldn't stand the test of, well, anything. Theoretical edifices erected for the day, memorialized nowhere, but wholly original. No one could ever replicate them—nor would anyone want to. As I mentioned to Ken earlier, I believe ideas refined are superior to, well, idle internet chatter.

Lest anyone think me inflexible, I think there's abundant evidence that I'm not—even, I say, even on the subject of psychoanalysis. Why? Because over the course of a conversation which all parties took seriously, I have been convinced of that mine is "the poorer" intellectual position. My ideas, see, have been refined. Now, some people think the academic blog charter includes "a safe space in which I can express my opinions without fear that they'll be tested." It doesn't. Which leads, on occasions, to trolls; but I don't see any of the regular (non-psychotic division) commenters here or around the block as trolls.

I point this out because, to my mind, academic blogs constitute an extension of the life-of-mind I already lead, and so I hold what happens here to similar (though, obviously, not identical) standards. That may, pace Bryan, make me appear dogmatic. I don't think it does (nor do I feel particularly dogmatic, or dogmatically anti-dogmatic, as the case may be), but I'm not too concerned about the labels.

[Nate]

It's abundantly clear that our vulnerability is all our insensitivity, which may be why I for one am feeling rather lost in the supermarket.