Dear All, [note inclusive greeting]
I have been somewhat frustrated by the course of the discussion of manners
and what should or shouldn't be allowed on XMCA. There are periods in the
life of every list when it reflects on its own existence and that's fine,
but I'm not sure where this is leading. As a result of the content of the
list (and thus the tendency to have a position on the ins and outs of
discourse, power, email and similar things), it seems to me that we are in
danger of losing sight of two things: that there are a small number of
basic rules that should be taken as guidelines by everyone and enforced by
the listowner, but that beyond those rules trying to enforce a particular
tone, form of greeting etc is counter-productive; secondly, that compared
with a number of lists I have been on XMCA is a pretty pleasant place to be
with relatively little pulling of rank, polemical abuse, personal put-downs
etc.
Firstly, I think we'll find it fairly easy to agree on the following as a
set of basic ground rules (having said that I'll doubtless be proved wrong
;)):
- Sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism and other forms of discrimination are
not to be tolerated;
- Ad hominem / feminam argument (i.e. argument aimed at the person /
personality of one's opponent rather than their substantive positions),
abuse and threats are not acceptable;
- Everyone has a right to take part in any discussion and equally to ignore
any discussion.
It seems to me that these rules should be enforced, if necessary by the
_ultimate_ sanction of removing offenders from the list (though clearly
there remains a certain fuzziness in definitions). Beyond that, matters of
tone, address, relevance and content can only be self-regulating if there
is the grounds for a consensus, which appears not to be the case - for a
whole number of reasons, some good, some bad perhaps. Too rigid and
wide-ranging a set of rules can be just as exclusive [and arbitrary] as no
rules at all. This isn't to say that writers shouldn't think about tone
etc, but there can be no general regulation which will not result in
excluding _someone_ either from the list or saying what they want to.
I do think that matters of tone are often dependent on 'where one is coming
from' (both literally and metaphorically). Having a long experience of the
far left where a certain polemical robustness is par for the course (which
is not to say that it cannot be destructive), I don't take offence at lots
of things that others might. Passionately held ideas tend to be stated
passionately. Ironically, I found the 'politeness clause' which Paul D.
inserted into his initial reply to me to be more patronising than polite,
but didn't attach much personal importance to it, partly because I thought
it wasn't aimed at me in particular. Which only goes to show you can't
please everybody all of the time ;}.
I think we should register that the atmosphere on the list has somewhat
been poisoned by the Mary Daly discussion, in which there were occasions on
which the above rules weren't kept to. [For the record, my position would
have been distinct from all the main protagonists on that issue.] I could
say more about that, but don't think it would be helpful at this stage.
On my second point, I think we should register that on XMCA things do work
out pretty well most of the time. It is never going to be possible to rule
out all inequalities of power, authority etc on an email list existing in
an unequal world, but one thing that does strike me about XMCA is that
graduate students can join the list and have their work taken seriously in
the spirit that others may learn from it; that there's a generally tolerant
atmosphere and that ideas tend not to be dismissed out of hand. That's not
bad.
I'm now waiting anxiously to see what kind of response this post provokes!
Bruce Robinson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:10 PST