Re [7082]: Hi Nicky. As you might imagine, I've given a lot of thought over the years to the dynamics of Internet communications. Here are some general findings as it relates to this issue: A. just about every Internet list tends to be dominated by one or a small number of subscribers -- usually men. On many mailing lists, it is not uncommon for l subscriber to post 20 or more messages every day. In general, I think that Internet mailing lists are more likely to become an *obsession* -- and a substitute for other types of social activity -- for men than women. This is one reason, I think, for the "striking sex-based disparity in participation" that Herring and you referred to. Some lists, e.g. the Progressive Sociologists Network (PSN), place limits on the quantity of posts that can be sent by an individual subscriber for this reason (the limit on PSN is 8 out of the last l00 for any individual subscriber.) B. volume (i.e. the quantity of posts) varies very considerably from list to list. There are some *very* high volume radical lists (such as LBO which typically has between 3,000 to 5,000 posts per month.) A large increase in volume can itself limit participation. In the case of PSN, the change in format noted above occurred after they had conducted surveys of past subscribers which indicated by a wide margin that the biggest single reason cited for leaving was the quantity of posts. >From that perspective, one has to recognize that where there is a big increase in volume people are chased away. This is often the case for those who have a lot of other responsibilities including what Simon described as caring activities during noncapitaltime. It should be noted in this regard that even though the volume on OPE-L is much lower than many lists (we average, year in and year out, about 200 posts per month), the intellectual energy required to read -- and respond to -- posts is considerably higher (we often, after all, discuss complex theoretical questions which are hard to follow.) This is something that has to be remembered when we consider who is _not_ participating on OPE-L However, *if* there has been a significant level of dissatisfaction about the volume of posts on OPE-L it hasn't resulted in many unsubscriptions (indeed, the percentage of unsubscriptions / year has remained incredibly low throughout OPE-L history. Also, the 'participation rate' [defined on OPE-L in the past as the percentage of subscribers posting per month] has remained much higher than just about all other Net lists that I am aware of [even though our participation rates are lower now than they were in many months in our early years when we were between 70-85%]. C. most mailing lists have a 'culture of lurking'. That is, most subscribers don't participate and indeed that is considered normal and acceptable for most mailing lists. This seems to me to be a mirror-image of what often happens in the classroom where there is typically an authority-figure (the teacher), a few talkative, self-confident, and assertive students (who tend attentive -- are mostly quiet. This is the case even for radical and Marxist mailing lists. On OPE-L we have consistently encouraged and observed significantly higher rates of participation ... although we also have always had some lurkers. I think that what is needed is to create an atmosphere where listmembers know that their views are welcomed but not an atmosphere where they feel guilty for not posting. Taking the analogy a step further: I think OPE-L is more like a seminar than a lecture. But, as all of you know, there are problems for any seminar if it gets too large. D. over time, who the most active posters are tends to change. One reason for this -- related to what I discussed above -- is that over time the extent to which we are committed to other life activities, whether they be job-related, political or caring activities, changes. Thus, we see listmembers enter and leave discussions -- often later to re-emerge in subsequent discussions. Because listmembers rarely state on-list why they are not engaged in discussion, we have little knowledge of the real reasons for these cycles of activity and non-activity on-list. Because women, as Simon suggested, are more likely to be committed to other time-demanding caring activities, this limits the time and energy that they might have for Internet discussions. E. the use of 'masculine language' and modes of discourse seems to be a prominent feature of just about all Internet mailing lists. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the propensity for 'flames' on Net lists. But, I think the problem is broader than that and largely agree with the findings of Herring about this. The *enjoyment* of intense and heated disagreements on Internet lists seems to me to be something that men often seem to disproptionately feel. For some Net lists, communications are similar to a "blood sport" like prizefighting where there is an arena full of subscribers who relish every jab and punch -- but "lurking" (quite literally) in the background are a large number of others who find blood sport -- sometimes mislabeled "dialogue" -- appalling. I think this attitude is related to a male enjoyment of struggle and competition -- these, of course, are the result of gender roles and socialization. I *also* think that this masculine form of discourse has a very long history in Marxism, going back to Marx, and is reflected in the fact that most debates in the history of Marxism have taken the form of *polemics*. This doesn't mean that there haven't been Marxist women who haven't mastered the polemical form of debate (e.g. Luxemburg could hold her own with anyone else), but I don't think most women (particularly scholars and academics) are much attracted to this form of discussion. Quite the reverse -- even when they see it from afar and are not actively engaged in it (and even when it doesn't actually rise to the level of 'flames'), it appears to many of them to be distasteful and an unpleasant outburst of male-type aggressive behavior. Of course, on OPE-L we have had many *very* intense discussions (even though we have had very few flames.) But, we also have members who are committed to continuing the conversation in a positive manner. Again and again I have been surprised (happily) by this tendency to pull back from aggression. Thus, when on other lists someone says something that will predictably turn into not just a flame but an out-of-control wildfire, I have noticed the tendency of many members to step back and present calm responses. Part of the reason for this may be that we tend to be a very serious lot and in general don't have the energy or inclination to engage in that form of abuse -- though, I think it is also a reflection of some of the personalities on the list who have a non-aggressive and 'nurturing' conversational tone which encourages discussion. This, of course, does not mean that _all_ OPE-L members have behaved in non-aggressive ways. F. What is discussed at length on most lists -- and what is not -- is largely a consequence of who is on the list and what their interests are. Yet, just having women on a list, even when they be Marxist, does not mean that feminist issues will be discussed. In the case of OPE-L this result is somewhat predictable for two reasons: a) those who have been recommended for membership -- more often than not -- share similar interests in political economy with those who recommend them: thus, if those whose area of interest is not gender studies are the ones making the recommendations, then this tends to reproduce the result that members aren't specializing in those studies, and b) the bulk of women who have joined OPE-L have been more interested in other research areas (such as Marxian monetary theories.) Nor should women members think that they _have_ to discuss, or be knowledgeable about, Marxism-feminism (any more than a subscriber from an oil-rich country should be expected to be an authority on the international oil industry: in other words, we should have no expectation about knowledge or interest based _only_ on sex, race, nationality, etc.) For us to consistently have more extended discussions by women and others about feminist-related issues would require, I believe, enough new admissions of those for whom the intersection of Marxism and feminism is a strong research concern for there to be a 'sub-community' on-list committed to nurturing such discussions. G. the 'culture' of a list is shaped to a great extent by the norms of moderation -- and often by the personality of the moderator. Some moderators chase subscribers away and exhibit the very worst of masculine behavior. Some moderators are very controlling and some are very laissez-faire. Some tend to act at the earliest sign of problems on-list and others tend to sit back and watch the fur fly. Some hardly ever author posts, others deluge their lists with massive quantities of posts that they author. From that perspective, moderation can reinforce the practice of 'masculine language' and behavior or undermine it. In the spirit of self-criticism, I will say that I tend to: a) write too many posts; b) try too often to initiate a discussion rather than just wait and let others eventually introduce new topics for discussion; c) take part in many discussions perhaps too loudly and assertively -- I think I should probably listen more and write less; d) perhaps micro-manage too much off-list; [all of the above could be viewed, I suppose, as "masculine behavior"] e) practice 'laissez faire' too much on-list. I.e. where there are potential problems on-list, e.g. something that could easily turn into a flame, I tend to be more 'laissez-faire' and hope that listmembers will themselves act to ensure that the discussion gets back on the right foot (see E.). This practice has emerged because I was encouraged in the past not to admonish listmembers on-list. I can easily think of instances in which I realize in retrospect that I should have acted differently -- more or less decisively and actively (now that there's an Advisory Committee, I can get some input about what to do on-list before acting.) On the plus side, I think I've consistently tried to be nurturing and encouraging for listmembers -- although it's true that I don't have the time now to do this as much one-on-one as in the early years when we were much smaller. And I think I've consistently argued for the concept of collective ownership and control rather than desiring individual control. But, there is always room for improvement. Any suggestions? H. the culture of any list is also, to a very great extent, determined by the conduct of the most frequent posters. If they are aggressive, then this tends to over time cut down on participation. If others on a list enjoy reading what they write and they encourage and welcome responses (even, or especially, when they are *critical* responses), then participation tends to go up. In general, I think that when listmembers "feel good" about discussions and think that they benefit from those discussions, then participation increases. Attention to this -- and the other issues of group dynamics discussed above -- by *all* of those who participate would create an atmosphere where more members are likely to participate. ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicky wrote in [7082]: >Nevertheless, political economy *is* concerned with the > construction of knowledge (of capitalism), so I do see some point in > studying 'dominant' discursive practices and trying to achieve some insight > into how these practices affect both the ways in which we construct our > knowledge of capitalism (i.e. how we do political economy) and the extent > to which our way of doing things escapes - or falls into - masculine modes > of discourse. Does OPE-L have anything unique to offer in this regard? > You bet it does. But, what is that 'unique' something that OPE-L has to offer in this regard? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:11 EDT