Hi Jerry [7079], I agree with all of the points you make (below). Nothing to add really, except to echo John H's previous comment on the presence of trusted comrades as a factor facilitating tentative explorations in unusual styles of communication and/or topics. This 'accepting' attitude towards mixing up the personal, political and professional is what I meant when I referred to *unique* aspects of OPE-L (possibly you know of other lists?). In more general terms, I believe that *all* computer-mediated contexts do afford greater opportunities (albeit largely unrealised) for 'nurturing' or 'supportive' styles of discussion in comparison with, say, a lecture room or any other face to face forum (for the simple reason that respondents have more time to think about what they are *doing* in addition to what they are *writing*). In any case, conscious attention to styles of communication in addition to the focus on what is communicated seems to be an important element in some of the interactions on OPE-L (despite their intensity). As a result, I've personally learned a great deal on OPE-L, not only about value theory but also about how to value others (as debating partners rather than debating opponents). comradely Nicky At 09:38 29/04/02 -0400, you wrote: >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 > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- Nicola Taylor Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:11 EDT