What should a blogger do?

If memory serves (and, yes, I'm hot and tired and my hip hurts and I'm distraught about not being able to run my little half marathon next week so I am resorting to tired cliches picked up from "Iron Chef") Jay Rosen is one of the bloggers who has emphasized a bloggers code of ethics. The idea for such a code, I think, is that blogging is close enough to journalism that bloggers need to be sure of their facts (nifty little performative underpinning here, don't you think, in that I am making these claims without taking even the 15 seconds of time to google Rosen and see if my assumption has any basis in googly fact).

Another version of blogging ethics has involved threats of violence--these are against the code, for bloggers as well as commenters.

Still another version chastizes people for violating spheres, for bringing real life (Patrick's beloved meat space, which could be delicious) into the blogosphere. One should not contact people's employers or graduate advisors and tell them all about the content of a blogger's site. A version of this, which I participated in violating and which was an element in some contentious disputes a few years ago, not to mention a lawsuit which cost me over a thousand dollars in legal fees, is outing people, exposing their real names and addresses (and other identifying information).

Other versions of blogging obligations emphasize flame wars and trolls, these are bad. They might include as well obligations toward proper linking and acknowledgment.

All of this is pretty well known (although I'd be grateful for folks to let me know if I've neglected anything here). But perhaps there are other obligations.

Is there an obligation of some kind of consistency? And, if so, does that apply to people who do not blog under their own names? Recently, there has been quite wonderful criticism of a blogger for game playing, for leading people on and in to discussions and then betraying them in various ways. It could be (and, although I am ignorant of some of the details and history here, I am inclined toward this view), that the obligations the blogger violated had to do less with blogging than something we might call basic human decency in any domain--one does not offer aid and then fail to extend it. This is a crucial element of the criticism, yet I think there is more involved, something more specific to blogging as a practice and the sorts of relationships that arise between bloggers and between bloggers and commenters.

Someone has also said that I have incurred certain obligations by:

by creating this blog, by putting herself forward to the public and out of the sanctuary of the academy. It seems to me that by making her thoughts and life public, she has a minimal responsibility, as a leftist as well as a human being, to acknowledge her challengers.

My friend Rainer Forst argues that human beings have a basic right to justification. I don't recall the details here (again in keeping with my performative critique of someone I've called Jay Rosen), but I think in his version this means that any human can call upon any other human to give an account of herself, her life, her choices. I disagree with this and find Judith Butler's discussion (Giving and Account of Oneself) useful her. But, my reasons are more mundane--I don't see what could possible ground such a claim. It is not a claim that another should share material goods or contribute materially. It is a demand, in a way, for a portion of another's mind, a portion that may well hidden and that another, in my view, is in no position to reveal. It's like demanding analysis.

For academics, it's often frustrating when we write long critiques of people, or even praise them, and they ignore us (it irks me no end how totally ignored Publicity's Secret has been; it's a nice sort of punishment though, a kind of cool little repetition of the title in another sphere). But, oh well. There are worse frustration out there--like training all summer for a half marathon and then getting injured and not being able to do it.

Comments

[Jay Rosen]

"Jay Rosen is one of the bloggers who has emphasized a bloggers code of ethics."

Nope. Not me. Jimmy Wales and Tim O'Reilly were making noise about that. If you put their names into Google with "blogger ethics code" it will all pop up.

[Paul]

Nice post, as always.

For what it is worth, I think your book is catching on in rhetoric circles. An advisor recently told me that if I was going to do any writing on public sphere theory, your book would be required reading (along with some other material) and I am seeing it referenced now and again in newer work. Take that for what you will.

[Jodi]

Well, gee, that's embarrassing. Sorry, Jay. It never occurred to me that you would read this. Anyway, I am embarrassed (but weren't you quoted in the NYT Week in Review this past Sunday? I must be mixing up all sorts of different names in my addled brain).

Paul--your advisor is wise and wonderful, a genius of exquisite taste and discernment, a true scholar and an innovative thinker.

[Jay Rosen]

No, I wasn't quoted in the Week in Review. But my friend and fellow blogger Jeff Jarvis was, and for some reason people often see as the same person. I take no offense.

Jeff made a lot of noise about the bloggers ethics code, but that's because he was against it.

Especially since I got to learn about your book, which sounds quite fascinating and very much up my alley. I did a lot of work on public sphere stuff in grad school and after.

It has often occurred to me that the whole idea of exposure, taken as a good in journalism, requires secrets to expose.

[Seb]

See, I've always been a contentious bastard, so lively debate online is always a joy for me, even if the words become a little less lacey & the tone a little more gristled. The only disheartening thing about I've found is, given the infinite online niches into which one can neatly curl up and ignore the rest of the world, everyone's on their own soapbox without bothering to listen to anyone else. It's a city of megaphone-toting deaf people.

Or, to put it more profanely... Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

(Apologies. I figured this simile was at least less offensive than the one involving a brothel.)

[hectoringboreAKAsixfootsubwoofer]

As the "Someone" who thinks Jodi has a *minimal* responsibility, as a leftist, to answer her challengers, I must explain what I meant to this "city of megaphone-toting deaf people."

It seems to me that if you write a book, or put your ideas on any public forum, then it is simply an intellectually admirable thing to address personally those who call you to task, whatever the challenge may be. Even if that challenge might seem hackneyed, obvious, or simply stupid, as an educator and as a human, it is only right to acknowledge the other person's intellectual existence. I've taught English to inner city kids, and got plenty of stupid questions, but answering them directly and honestly only seemed to be the best way to deal with it. Ignoring them only ends up making them dumber as well as making yourself look guilty. Who wants to look like Rumsfeld avoiding giving an answer as the raving questioner is led away? I can perfectly sympathize with Jodi's frustration at being ignored.

"It is a demand, in a way, for a portion of another's mind, a portion that may well hidden and that another, in my view, is in no position to reveal. It's like demanding analysis."

You reveal more by NOT revealing that "portion of your mind" that might fuel your ideas, maybe a portion even unknown to yourself. I asked Jodi a simple question: "Why does she study and teach Leftist Theory? Is it something to do with guilt?" I was seeking what Zizek was talking about in reference to (again) Rumsfeld and his "known knowns/unknown knowns/known unknowns"...and the very important left out "uknown unknowns". I was seeking maybe that "unknown unknown" part of what led Jodi to Theory. I can understand why it made her uncomfortable, but I think it would be horrible to live in a world where no one ever wanted to be uncomfortable. How are we to know ourselves if we are unable to reveal ourselves to others, especially those parts of ourselves that make us uncomfortable.

It would have been one thing if I asked Jodi to tell me about her father. It is, I think, perfectly fine to call a public intellectual to task regarding their public thoughts or decisions, and just as fine to analyze their answer or refusal to answer.

My question now is: Why is it considered a necessary aspect of democracy to demand answers from our elected officials but completely taboo to demand such answers from public intellectuals? I'm not at all being sarcastic, I am just trying to get a grip on the mores of intellectual culture.

[Patrick J. Mullins]

'It is, I think, perfectly fine to call a public intellectual to task regarding their public thoughts or decisions, and just as fine to analyze their answer or refusal to answer'

But not nearly as fine as it is to refuse an answer to an uncouth questioner, and I do not refer to your self-termed 'loooower class', I have known plenty from all classes I have thought very fine. You have not earned the right to be acknowledged, and the swagger is boring everybody.

[Jodi]

Seb--I laughed out loud. I have a weakness for that sort of joke. It reminds of an Onion feature about the military and Special Forces. The article was about Very Special Forces and they photo shopped some special olympics and military photos together.

Jay--thanks for straightening that out. I'm tempted to correct it, but also like that the mistake has engendered some conversation. I fully agree with your point regarding the supposition of exposure/something to expose.

[hectoringboreAKAsixfootsubwoofer]

I wish I knew exactly what it was about my comments that were so uncouth. I never attacked anyone's person, only their actions, and even then it was more of a questioning than an attack, I believe.

Exactly what should one do to earn the right to be acknowledged? I was under the impression that leftist thought attempted to acknowledge ALL subjects, or at least that's what I get from my readings.

Remember, Patrick, you were the one who wished failure upon me and for me to rot in hell, as well as many other choice profanities. I never wished anything of the sort for anyone here, nor have I used profanities that were not in response to the ones used against me.

[Patrick J. Mullins]

"I wish I knew exactly what it was about my comments that were so uncouth"

I wish you did too.

"Remember, Patrick, you were the one who wished failure upon me and for me to rot in hell,"

But that has undergone several new mutations, can't you keep up? How are you going to ever realize that I took a lot of time with you, only to find out that indifference is always impending, and that that, alas, has happened to the deep and abiding relationship that you and I have shared so intimately, across a crowded screen, today...

"as well as many other choice profanities"

Are you a redneck?

[hectoringboreAKAsixfootsubwoofer]

I think my issue is with your mutations, as well as with Jodi's snobbiness. If you were to maintain a consistently civil tone in response to my comments, as opposed to that initial "fuck you" which destroyed your National Honors Society pretensions entirely in my view, I would never have raised my tone to one of anger. I was only responding in kind with any "uncouth" language. I was hoping to gain a little bit of respect for Jodi and other Leftist Intellectuals, but I have actually lost much of the respect for them I came here with.

As far as the substance of my responses, I have yet to be convinced by anyone here(I will gladly relent and admit guilt once someone does so)that my questions were "uncouth".

I came here to learn something as well as attempt to create a debate about academic privilege and its relation to said academics' guilt, and instead have been called vulgar names and abused in the carefully modulated, fake civility of the caricatured kiss-ass academic. I have also had my comments made fun of by a grown woman who is supposed to be a serious academic, not just ignored in true bourgeoise style, but *made fun of*, ridiculed much in the way a high school girl would. I would be thrilled if anyone had corrected my misuse of terms, or tried to lead me to texts that would shed more light on my questions and issues.

Now what am I supposed to take with me from this? You won't give me examples of how I was uncouth, Jodi refuses to even acknowledge that I am a human being, and now she even considers my questioning of her motives parallel with the violence of the Unibomber(sic).

Now you ask if I'm a redneck! How is that any sort of discourse? I didn't ask you, when the idiosyncrasies of your language called for it, if you were a preening, bitter faggot, now did I? Would that have helped things along?

I DO come from the south, and there are surely some rednecks in my family tree. All of this has led me to believe that Leftist Academia is as classist as the worst of the bourgeoise superrich, and just as defensive when their motives and intentions are questioned. And I was hoping sincerely to have been convinced otherwise.

[seto]

Having someone acting like Patrick does around doesn't make this a very welcoming comment space. Of course, maybe you prefer to keep the discussion among friends.

I think subwoofer asks very interesting questions. i don't think he has been especially uncouth. I also disagree with Patrick that sating someone 'lives unfairly' is worse than name-calling. The first a debatable point about the political consequences of actions. Name calling is bullying, an irrational personal attack that stops discussion.

I don't think that intellectuals owe an explanation to anyone for anything. Like a politician, however, one of the risks of having public representations of yourself out there, is that you'll encounter people who demand an explanation from you whether you like it or not. That, I think, has to do with the technological mediums we communicate through (cable tv, internet).

That aside, intellectuals are not politicians. They are responsible to the chair of their department and their students to perform the job they were hired for. They are not representing a constituency, they are hired to do a job. I think this is a significant difference. We shouldn't morally police each others personal lives at all (we are all hypocrites anyway), but I think in our political climate the social/personal has been politicised. I would tend to agree with Arendt, that it indicates something dark about our political moment. Whlie we might think it 'personally admirable' to respond to critics, but there is no obligation.

I think that subwoofer is sincere, and has a point with his last comment.

[hectoringboreAKAsixfootsubwoofer]

Thanks very much, seto.

I agree that academics don't have exactly the same sorts of obligations as do our elected officials, I just think it especially alarming that there is such a cloak around Leftist Academia, making it rather "dark" and inaccessible to the "common" person. People like me should not have to demand information from leftist intellectuals, it seems to me they should be eager to give it up. Why keep it to yourself?

[patrick j. mullins]

"your National Honors Society pretensions "

I never had them. Sorry your sincerity has led you to such a limited sense of humour.

"I didn't ask you, when the idiosyncrasies of your language called for it, if you were a preening, bitter faggot, now did I? Would that have helped things along? "

I don't know if it would have helped things along, but I wouldn't have cared. Things like that don't bother me, and anyway you're doing it now, which also doesn't bother me--I'd have to care more about your opinion of me than I do of my own, and I don't. At any rate, you did refer to me as some sort of aging person who was upset about the 'blow job bathroom than never comes...'which is far worse than anything I said, and accused me of wanting you as 'rough trade that you love to fuck and hate to hear talk'. Now, that would have bothered me logically, had it been true; but since it was not, I did not take it seriously, and then I thought we were winding things down and being a bit more lighthearted. The 'redneck' thing was not serious, and while I agree that name-calling is not admirable, what you wrote pissed me off as much as what pisses you off that Jodi and I and others write, so just grow up and live with it. I am not going to apologize to you, though, nor that ridiculous Seto, who is merely a 'supportive comrade' as you accused Jodi of being in regard to me, because ordinarily if someone accused one of wanting to get a blow job, then reversed it (or whatever you did, it was pretty muddy), that would have been taken up as some sort of insult about age, sexual orientation and all the various things that would go into such talk traditionally--but as you see, I don't care about this sort of thing, and that you take it very seriously and get your feelings hurt. Seto 'thinks you're sincere', and I suppose you think you are too. Well, I don't buy it, and it would seem that you had better things to do than refuse to accept than some of your missionary-position projects are not selling to certain prospective customers. Look at it this way: Paul had a lot of success on the road--just pick up the New Testament. He was even able to write a 'Letter to the Romans.' Not included in the New Testament, but well-known to Biblical scholars is his trip to Athens, where there was an audience which found him something of an amusing bauble, then went back to their own business, which is generally thought to have been exemplary in terms of a refined way of life. Paul therefore was disallowed a 'Letter to the Athenians'. I'm glad that Zizek was so gracious to you, but I doubt that he went home and thought, as Don Johnson once said of Barbra Streisand in one of the last movie magazines during their mini-affair when questioned on 'what Barbra did for him', Don said 'Well...she makes me think..' I don't know if Slavoj went home and emailed Jodi with 'I met this other guy with a Southern accent and he really didn't think I was living a Christian-Marxist poor-person enough life. How will I be able to write about Stalin again and do it in good conscience?'

You can call me anything, or analyze me, I've already got your number. If you can convince other people of their paganism, that's fine, mo' powah to ye... You've definitely convinced me of mine, and I intend to hang on to it, baby, oh yes, yes, we'll save TARA!

[patrick j. mullins]

"People like me should not have to demand information from leftist intellectuals, it seems to me they should be eager to give it up. Why keep it to yourself?"

'People like YOU' are not asking a real question, you are asking a question for which you want also to design your own answer. You want to determine the context, because you and people like Seto have found the context of the questioned wanting. And you are astonished that they do not immediately capitulate to your absurd and even invasive demands. You do not want new empowering information. You are trying to drag people down into your own sewer, and they are not going there when they have half a brain.

[hectoringbore]

"People like YOU' are not asking a real question, you are asking a question for which you want also to design your own answer."

Re-reading the posts from yesterday, I can understand why you would think that. My tones and language DID come off at times as making me seem very naive and closed-minded. I admit as much, but it is very difficult to get across such subtle sentiments and ideas in a forum such as this.

I DO come to this forum in all humility, I apologize if I was percieved as self-righteous. I feel there are so many young people who have no emotions regarding the current state of capitalism, as so those of us that do have passions usually end up sounding too self-assured and haughty. I would have felt a lot less insulted if Jodi had acknowledged me, but now I kind of realize the stakes involved for her in being so open.

I'm glad the discussion has gotten back into the territory inhabited by civil, thinking beings, and not "feral cats of condescension". haha.

[Patrick J. Mullins]

"Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

Oh yes, that's superb, I missed it yesterday, and you can't leave it out of your blogging book, Jodi.

[Adam Kotsko]

Sorry your sincerity has led you to such a limited sense of humour.

Patrick, this is an awesome turn of phrase.

[pebird]

Anyone who believes that asking "Why does she study and teach Leftist Theory? Is it something to do with guilt?" is a simple question should not be surprised when others don't take them seriously.

[sincerehecklerAKAsixfootsubwoofer]

Pebird, I agree completely with you, and apologize once again for the sarcasm, I suppose facetiousness, with which I initially posed the question. From now on I promise to follow the rules of comity, even if it means ignoring our dear Patrick. Hence, a new handle for myself is appropriate.

However, as my main priority here is not to have mySELF taken seriously, but rather only for my questions to be, I do think the question still stands, and is in itself a serious one. I do hope Jodi will deign to address it in her posts more in the future, as well as other academics here and elsewhere.

I apologize for cross-commenting with the other post, but would anyone please help me out and lead to me to some texts that address the political versus the personal? As in, why political acts cannot be personal ones, and vice versa? Or why they should not be?

I am aware of Zizek's and others' claims that "there are only political acts". I suppose I (mis?)interpreted that to mean that ALL we do are political acts, from our choices of employment to how we conduct our daily lives. If what is said of capitalism is true, that it is a matrix from which we are unable to be or act outside of, an ether that permeates our every thought and action, then is it not also true that all our personal actions are performed within the field of capitalist production, and hence also that of politics?

Is not "politics" the domain from which the matrix of capitalism is maintained and perpetuated, as well as the domains of production and commodification?

I greatly appreciate anyone's help in pointing out some texts that will make this clearer to me.

(And Jodi, I read the bits of Publicity's Secret available on amazon.com, and find it fascinating. I plan on finding the first discounted copy available!)

[Jodi]

SHAKASFSW--thanks re Pub's Secret. There are lots of posts on this blog that address your questions, just as there were comments that answered your questions on the other thread. Here's a link to one. If it doesn't work, it's from Sept 18, 2005.

http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/boring_stuff_about_me/index.html

[sixfootsubwoofer]

Thanks, Jodi, I could really use the help.

I sometimes feel a little out of my depth here, and am working hard to change that. It's the curse of the young auto-didact. I'm still not convinced that much of Leftist Academic language doesn't attempt to exclude, and maybe my requests for direct response are naive, but still sincere.

Not exactly sure yet how your post, "Levee Town: Alexander Cockburn", answers, maybe addresses, my questions, but I will re-read it as well as spend time studying your archives in order to get a better feel for the context in which such questions as mine can be asked or answered.

All apologies for any ill-will you might have percieved...my pursuits here are still works-in-progress.

[Jodi]

The link is terrible. The post is called In the beginning was the word.

[sixfootsubwoofer]

Much thanks, Jodi. I see now how "In The Beginning Was The Word" relates to my questions. We have similar backgrounds. I can only hope to one day become your peer.

I very much enjoyed the preceding thread, "Economics as apocalypse: neoliberalism 101", and will for sure check out some Phillip Goodchild.

What is it about the month of September that brings out thoughts of bare subsistence and, for me, fantasies of sorts of apocalypse, as well as economics in relation to politics? Perhaps subconsciously we are preparing for winter.

Have you tried yoga for your hip? I've found the Warrior pose to be a good one for common hip strain, as long as you do it correctly.

[IndieFaith]

very nice. i have been reading your blog for a little while and quite appreciate your style and content.