Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HAB: Dear Discourse Solidarity


I want to respond to the context indicated by three subject
lines today, thus my hybrid subject line.  It's apt, I
think.

I concur with Steve's attitude and interest, and I much
enjoyed Ken's stance in reply, which is the kind of posting
I put in my HAB List archive. 

We write a lot about normativity, but list members don't
have a list ethic that guides or fosters or protects any
group intent or identity. Steve, you  write:

S> ...I do not believe that this list is the place to
pursue [political commitments and programmatic
aspirations].  

G: This is, of course, different from saying: I propose
that this list not be a place to pursue [that], but it
wouldn't be inappropriate to propose this. But who would
handle the consensus formation on this (Send all "yea" /
"nay" replies to whom?), and who would be responsible for
reasonably ensuring that the guideline norm as to what
"this place is" is reliable? It's not going to happen,
because the de jure moderator is not a de facto moderator.
We have a list owned by someone uninvolved with the subject
area of the list--in effect, an absentee landlord. The
concept of the Spoons Collective seems
anachronistic--echoing the "news group" / bulletin board
days of MUDs. 

Deirdre Golash doesn't like advertising-subsidized venues.
Well, I may dislike advertising more than you. But, do you
like the option of turning off and on your receipt of
e-mails without having to unsubscribe? Do you like the
option of only receiving digests whenever you please? Do
you like the option of only receiving postings, but not a
flurry of replies (where replies only go to the author)? Do
you like the prospect of having long discussions put up
easily in the group archive files by any member, without
having that long discussion (or multiple long discussions)
coming into your mailbox (and that long discussion appended
to others' replies)? Do you like the prospect of opting out
of certain kinds of topics, because the topic is centered
on an evolving group file discussion, and you choose not to
receive the replies on this?  Do you like the option of
being able to post both from your e-mail address and from
the Web page? Do you like the prospect of freedom to
contribute to a group calendar (for focused reading group
work, conferences not sent to Spoons Announcements, etc.)
related to the group topic? Do you like group bookmark
feature (like Mathieu does at habermasonline.org) that all
members can contribute to freely? And do you like the
prospect of a group-developed ethos, where members can all
control the character of the group site development and a
moderator who actively cares about the group identity and
is also part of the communication community? 

All this is brought to you for free, via advertising--which
I mention not as a matter of recommendation, but as a
matter of fact about what's available. Just from a
perspective of the sociology of the Internet, the rapid
evolution of group media is something to bear in mind, in
the face of recent posting trends via Spoons. Would you pay
monthly for this? Say: $2? $4? No, I expect. So, do you
EXPECT the University of Virginia to subsidize your free
media forever? And crude software is the trade-off? OK,
that's your choice. 

But Fred, I don't think anyone's *leaving* this list. I'm
certainly not (But there are a few members who've "bought"
a filter on my e-mail address with their free play, and I
have no idea anymore what they post--not you, Fred, yet).
But I am looking down the road a few years, and I expect by
then that the habermas-AT-yahoogroups.com will be a good
place.

Back to Steve:

S> I belong to this list to help me think about Habermas's
work and discourse ethics-related theory, not to wade
through political appeals.

G: I second that. I have a passive fantasy of inviting my
preferred others to the other venue that's only open to
whom I like--an adolescent thing that I recognize as
such--and you're certainly on that list (not that my
preferences *should* mean anything--only that I, too, have
preferences, and why *shouldn't* I act on them?)

S> Once we start down the path of political exhortations, I
believe the list's original, basic purpose will be lost.

G: What IS "the list's original, basic purpose?" I have a
proposal.

Material should either:

(1) genuinely relate to Habermas's work; or 
(2) be directly involved with understanding issues in light
of Habermasian interests (preferrably from a Habermasian
perspective, whatever you genuinely understand that to be);
or 
(3) be directly related to current affairs that JH has
addressed in publication. 

If members wish to post outside this boundary, please flag
your posting after "HAB:" with some agreed-upon character,
like 'X', and members may wish to put a filter on their
email that automatically sends e-mails to the trash, if the
subject line contains the "HAB:X" string. Ha! What
polemicist is going to warn you of their passion? 

Maybe the teenager knows best: Ignore them, and make
solidarity with your own kind (in this case: those who are
good for your work). But the anarchist loves this: the turf
becomes theirs. What are you  to do, without an active
moderator who ensures a group ethic? 

I want to add to Ken's comments. One should keep in mind
that, in Germany, Habermas IS an active commentator. If one
is really concerned with what JH thinks of current events,
then one should read Die Zeit or get a fluent German friend
to translate; and get JH commentary posted to the
habermasonline.org site, in German and English, and let
others know about it.  

I'm happily reconciled to the fact that my interest is
relative to my continent's place in the world, and Habermas
doesn't get special pleading on current affairs relative to
life in the Western Hemisphere or world affairs relative to
my homeland. He's a treasured voice in a life I lead by my
own light, not his. I *read* what I can of his work (and
worked very closely with most of it, relative to "trench"
life in public education and public health), such that I
feel confident about what his work implies for "practice"
and lifeworld understanding, be it political,
psychological, whatever. That was and is a long road. 

Here, at the Spoons list, I want to contribute to the
influence of JH's work in the English-speaking world,
especially in my land (the return of the preacher, maybe)
or help with initial understanding of his work, as best I
can (as time allows), but I really don't care whether
others know my political views. I certainly don't have time
to elaborate them for each "critical" issue.

In my view, Raul and Bob Scheetz and the like are
insulting; they remind of the Socialist Youth League of the
late 1960s, while I outgrew vanguardism long ago. I
recommend that the passionate mind do good work near at
home, rather than trying to play vanguard voice in the
commons (as if it's the 1930s).  

Looking at your posting, Ken, I have to admit--though I
don't want to--that you're on my list, too. Good show.

Gary





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---