politics on the listserve

[Adam Blatner]

Indeed, although I had family commitments during that time, I was turned off even before that to a conference that would be full of people being politically intense.
    Political intensity is intimidating, because it polarizes. If one is in general agreement, yet lacks any of the fanaticism of the speaker, one can be challenged for being cowardly, for lacking conviction. If one suggests any moderate attitudes, any toning down of inflammatory rhetoric, one is vulnerable to being attacked again for being a secret whatever-the-opposition is. (In the early through mid-late 1960s, it was being "soft on communism," -- if not actually a 'red,' then at least a 'pinko.' ) 
    Any attitude of inclusiveness, an openness to negotiate, or the recognition that a given political position often is associated with other similar or related positions about which one might not fully agree.
      Not all Republicans are for the war, anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, and a host of other fiscal and social conservative ideas, and not all these ideas are equally problematic. Nor are all Democrats opposing these issues. Many Democrats and Republicans see a number of policies of the present administration as flying in the face of the core value of fiscal conservativism and limited government, so political dialogue is difficult, requires moderation and focus.
       My own vulnerability is that of a kind of intellectual attention to semantics, a wariness about generalities, and a wariness also about the idea that affirming a general sensibility offers any concrete plans. I focus on the specifics, and their pros and cons. 
      A second vulnerability in the listserve is the occasional situation that someone rather strongly disagrees with me, impugning not just the contents of my words (which, I confess, sometimes deserve to be revised and refined), but also my motivation or character. That's unpleasant, but it's intensified by the loud silence as others fail to speak up in my defense. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Point is that politics is sticky.
      Nor am I at all convinced that speaking about politics is at all useful or heartening. Even if one is for some policy, it's awkward when someone else advocates that same policy in what seems like even a little more extreme terms. 
      In short, there are certain contexts that are more useful for politics: 
            -- sessions in which there are no other agendas. That's what you're there for. To avoid politics on this listerve, though, one may lose all the other professional exchanges that go on.
            -- personal presence that can speak with more rapid feedback, and ideally even use doubling to help the less articulate. Where others are there who are expected to get involved, to moderate, mediate, and perhaps use various techniques such as asides, mirror, or role reversal -- i.e., sociodrama. This cannot happen via email.
            -- etc. 

    Warmly, Adam
 (I'm erasing the previous dialogue. If folks want it, we can also re-send it back-channel.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070515/dca358f2/attachment.html