File spoon-archives/french-feminism.archive/french-feminism_1997/97-04-21.004, message 19


Date: 	Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:15:52 -0500
From: "kenneth.mackendrick" <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: Smugness and Sibling Rivalry


I'm not sure if this is an appropriate post - but it regards something 
that weighs heavily on my conscience.

Has anyone else ever noticed that what people write in articles, 
publish in books, and say in conferences is different from what is 
spoken in class or at the local pub?  Terms like critique and 
problematic, or muddied appear in journals but words like trash, 
incoherent, and stupid arise over a pint.  There is a great spectre 
haunting public conversation these days - lets call it the demon of 
diplomacy.  Many people (not all) separate, sharply, between what 
they say and what they really think.  It, in my opinion, is the height of 
academic dishonesty.  It is simply dishonest to sugarcoat thoughts in 
order to make them edible for an anticipated audience. This 
nonsense is a real problem - and i'm not saying that when people 
write they are being dishonest - i'll assume that ALL communicative 
exchanges stem from an honest reaction.  I'm just interested in the 
divide here.  When something pisses me off - i want to feel free to 
express my frustration, my anger, and my passion - publically and 
privately (as if these distinctions make sense anyway).  If i come 
across as being condenscending - its because  i feel that way!  
This does not necessarily relate to my feelings about a specific 
person - but rather about what they have said - the way they are 
reasoning etc.  Obviously these things are not separate - but i think it 
is possible to engage people with some measure of reciprocity and 
respect and still be true to your own thoughts and feelings.  and this 
is NOT to say that "emotion" takes hold of reason and becomes 
irrational.  The separation of the two is absurd.  Feeling and reason 
are completely entwined - we reason because we feel and our 
feelings motivate our reasoning.  For instance - the whole 
cyber-human discussion bugs me.  When i try to sugar coat my 
thoughts on the matter - "well maybe...." i'm just not being honest.  I 
understand myself to be  human.  maybe a stream of consciousness 
will alter this in the future but for now i'm modern - NOT without 
reason.  my passion, my anxiety, and my frustration all play into my 
arguments.  i generate "good reasons" precisely because i take 
things seriously.  My distain is not carte blanche - it comes with an 
explanation.  I know i know - when in public discourse we are 
suppossed to take other peoples feelings into consideration... but at 
what price!  we lie.  this is nuts.  i appreciate sincerety, honest, and 
candor - even if it is something i only perceive as such (and i 
seriously question the notion that self-deception is even possible).  
the so-called "flaming" response to my entropy piece is case and 
point.  don walter's reply seemed to be an honest reaction - 
passionate reasons to boot.  hurraayy!!!!!  i raise my glass to candor 
and intellectual honesty.  Please - tell me what you REALLY think.
ken

ps.  i know this also involves issues of comfort, disclosure etc.  so 
relapses, i suppose, are inevitable.  but come on - let's at least try to 
narrow the divide between published works and bar room chatter 
-after all i don't think promoting the divide between public and private 
is very healthy in this political climate.  its kinda psychotic when you 
think about it (or at least when I think about it).  i guess (geez - this 
postscript is getting long) the issue of employment and publishability 
comes into play here as well....  but strategies are a poor substitute 
for honesty.

pss.  is this related to chora?








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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005