I've lost a sense of why blog.
Perhaps it is a 'thinkers block.' This is rare for me. Usually, I have ideas. I know what I want to try to understand, try to think, try to say. Right now I just feel trapped, unclear, lost in a lack of understanding.
And, I feel guilty--for not responding, for not having ideas, not being able to contribute. And, I think, what's the point? Why bother? There is a world of thinking and speaking and discussing out there.
I feel trapped, conflicted, by the incommunicability of different ways of speaking and thinking. Not here on i cite--folks who take the time to respond are generous and smart. But, there are other loci where I feel the gap between academic practice and everyday practice too strongly too think. The rules or suppositions of academic exchange are not the same as blog rules. That's a great aspect of blog space--but it makes it hard for an academic.
And, I feel the weight of the article from the Chronicle and what academics are saying about it. Even when they disagree, they still acknowledge that it will change the way they read blogs, the way they think about their colleagues who blog.
I blog under my own name. Accordingly, I generally feel obliged to have some kind of restraint, to adopt at least a bit or sort of restraint--even when others do not, and, I think, should not: I don't aim to make my norms theirs.
Again, this isn't about the exchanges here--I so appreciate that people have taken the time to engage and think. But, right now I can't quite get my bearings on what this is about.
Perhaps the dilemmas are the result of the pressures of helping someone close to me move for a week even as I am collapsing under the weight of deadlines. Usually I know what a paper is about. Now I think I don't know anything at all. Why bother, when I don't think anything?