File spoon-archives/french-feminism.archive/french-feminism_1997/97-03-25.044, message 187


Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: J Poxon <poxon-AT-saclink.csus.edu>
Subject: Re: ConSpamination



On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Bayard G. Bell wrote:

> While I don't want to be taken as arguing for the necessity of
> regulating this list through moderation at this moment, I am somewhat
> surprised at the examples of reasoning used to argue against moderation
> above.  I believe that Petra's response gets right to the heart of the
> problem.  Why not have the listserv reflector block repeat posts?  Many
> lists have this feature as it is.  I would hardly call it an
> unproductive restriction on speech.  And I doubt that it lead to
> anything like Dr. Shawver's end of "friendly spontaneity" (indeed, this
> sort of thing does seem to help lists retain their membership).

Speaking both as co-moderator of this list and as one of its enthusiastic 
subscribers, I am not opposed in principle to the kind of limit that 
Bayard and Petra are suggesting here, although I think it's rather 
unnecessary, given that this has happened only once (OK, I guess you 
could say twice) in the nearly three years I've been subbed to this list. 
My concerns, as I think should be clear from my earlier remarks, have 
more to do with limiting the content of list discussions--and I admit 
that in expressing these concerns I may have been guilty of shifting the 
focus on this issue in a misleading way. However, since Bayard has raised 
some further issues in response to my comments (and those of others on 
this list) about limits to "free speech," I'd like to take the discussion 
a little further, myself.

>      Generally speaking, I am not sure why the members of this list seem
> so intent on genuflecting to "free speech."  

My concern is less with protecting an alleged "sanctity" of free speech 
that with keeping the authority of the list as decentered as possible 
(and I recognize that absolutely decentered authority on a discussion 
list like this is an unrealizable limit)--which is to say that I am 
uneasy with the idea that listmembers might ask me, or Kathy O'Grady, or 
the spoon collective, to take on the role of policing the list to protect 
everyone from the possible abuses of free speech. 

>      We are talking about how to maintain a certain kind of
> productivity.  Let us not make the mistake of situating this
> [non-dilemma] between the poles of freedom and legislation.  I would
> question Dr. Poxon's comment about "hierarchical and authoritarian
> systems of patriarchy" on this point.  Certain things must be excluded
> in order for a feminist project to proceed (let alone seek realization).

I think I probably agree with these observations, but again, what _I_ 
would want is for the community of the list as a whole to deal with the 
logistics of maintaining this "certain kind of productivity," rather than 
appealing to the technocrats to do it for us.

>      We are for "free speech" on this list because we have not run into
> forms of expression which limit the productivity of this list (the spams
> being but a bump in the road, not a serious obstacle).  

I'm well aware that the limits of "pure tolerance" have not been tested 
on french-feminism; in fact I often marvel at how civil and productive 
our list discourse continues to be. So I'd say this is a point well-taken.

> Let us not
> mischaracterize ourselves here and claim to be libertarians.  While this
> might not be the moment for regulation and we might choose a different
> mode of regulation when the time comes, let us not screw ourselves by
> being suckered into taking "free speech" in the rather misleading
> literal sense of "everything goes."  After all, even anarchy is a system
> of production.  And one not particularly like to coincide with a
> feminist agenda at that.

In light of some of the other posts that have come in on this issue over 
the past couple of days, I'd guess that many listmembers would disagree 
with Bayard on this point, or at least question, as someone has, what he 
means by his last claim here. I myself _am_ committed to a kind of 
feminism that I see as anarchic, if not anarchistic; in other words, I'm 
not trying to situate myself within a particular historical trajectory 
that would include, for example, Emma Goldman--but rather to suggest the 
possibility of conceiving a feminism that doesn't appeal to or derive 
itself from transcendentals. 

But I also have no interest in imposing my 
understanding of feminism, or of politics in general, on the list, and 
for this reason am very interested in hearing what others of us have to 
say about all this.

Judith Poxon
poxon-AT-saclink.csus.edu
 


     --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005