File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9711, message 400


From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:29:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: PLC: LA Freedom of speech means even Pat Sloane gets to speak


In a message dated 97-11-08 10:27:30 EST, John writes:

>  And I also refer to a
>  private correspondence in which I asked her to share some of her expertise

> in
>  art, and she did.  But in her posts she was at times dreadfully
patronizing
>  and condescending.  Which I--as a 55-year-old man who has been around the
>  track a few times--found off-putting. 

John,

You have to realize on the internet all visual clues are missing.  When you
asked me questions about art, you sounded, for whatever reason (or through my
misunderstanding) as if you were a very young person.  So when I answered
your questions as best I could, I tried to keep the answers at a level that
would be right for freshman students.  

What I could have done was ask you about yourself before I answered the
questions--but I'm not used to the idea of asking people all this personal
stuff. How old they are and so forth, which many people don't like being
asked.  What you could have done was alert me along the way that I was making
the answers too simple.  I guess you didn't because you'd decided I meant to
be "dreadfully patronizing and condescending."  Actually, had I wanted to
give you a hard time, I think I would have told you to get lost, and not
answered your questions at all.

The absence of visual clues might be devastating.  People, including myself,
may be overly quick to take offense on the internet.  On whether an answer is
at the level you expected, I've had it go off both ways.  On answers that
were over my head, I've had to say, excuse me, I don't read Latin and this is
not my area of specialization.  On answers that were too low level, I
sometimes ask a high level question, and the person usually gets the point.
Sometimes it's worth letting go by.  I've had people enthusiastically trying
to "teach" me really low-level stuff.  I suppose I could say, yes I know this
stuff; I wrote a book about it.  But doesn't seem to be any point in
embarrassing the person. They just didn't realize.  

Anyway, my point is that this feeling around for the right level goes on all
the time, with many mishaps. Rarely does the explainer intend to patronize or
insult, and I'm not sure that should be your first thought rather that your
last thought.  You're assuming I can function without feedback, which isn't
the case.  Nobody can. You're telling me now, of course,  what your level is.
 Wish you'd let me know at a time when I could have used the information.  

For the record, as above,  I had no intention of being "dreadfully
patronizing and condescending."   And I'm not understanding why you didn't
give a clue at the time that this was how you felt.  Or maybe there were
clues that I missed. All I recall is that you asked some questions, I
answered them, you asked some more, and after a while it stopped. I assumed
you'd gone on to other things, though I'm understanding now that you felt
patronized.  I wish you hadn't taken in in that way.  And it's too late now
to make repairs. But I appreciate your telling me anyway.

> I refer to one of her posts in which she made a
>disdainful, cutting reference to someone's status as a "graduate student,"
as
>if this were somehow something to be ashamed of.  

No academic is disdainful of graduate students, and I wouldn't have gone to
graduate school myself if I thought it was a shameful thing to do.  I need to
see the post. My first question is whether I simply used the word s "graduate
student" or whether I was actually, as you say, "disdainful."  You seem to
have your mind set on the idea that I look down on people, which is a common
cartoon stereotype of academics.  Doesn't  mean I couldn't actually be an
elitist snob with no respect for other people. But I'm baffled about how
you're reading the signs. FYI, here's how I'd operate if somebody asked me a
question, as you did.

If I wanted to be civil and respectful, I'd answer the question. If it was a
dumb question, I wouldn't say so, or there really are no dumb questions.  God
knows, enoughj people have been patient with dumb questions from me.  So I
owe a bit back to the world. I'd try to keep the answer clear enough to be
sure the person understood.  The drive for clarity isn't, as you took it, a
way of being "patronizing."

If I wanted to be a disdainful patronizing elitist snob, I'd go about it
either of two ways.

(A) I'd tell the person to get lost, to go look it up in the library.

(B) I'd give an answer that was so <high> level, not so <low> level, that the
person would have not a clue of what I was talking about.  I'd use words and
technical terms that weren't familiar to the person, mention art works and
books they'd never heard of, act as if I was amazed that they'd never read
the third most important Rumanian expert on the subject, etc. etc.  Giving me
credit for knowing how to be a disdainful, patronizing elitist snob when i
want to be.

If you see me doing (B), above, tell me to stop it.  By your own account it
wasn't what I was doing to you.

I've no idea which way this will go.  Maybe it was a misunderstanding, and it
will work its way out. Maybe I'm just never going to be your favorite person,
and we'll have to leave it at that.  In either case,  thanks for sharing your
thoughts, and a nice touch to say you mean it in a friendly manner.

pat sloane


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005