next »

[Loren Wingblade, Ph.D.]

To Author: anon, not crazy:

You took the quote about Sue Estroff out of context.  Too bad you didn't use the whole quote.  My point was that
Estroff wanted to experience first hand what mental patients were experiencing.

And yes I do make a distinction between methodology criticism and ad hominen attacks.  I consider the latter cowardly, but that's just my opinion--you needn't share it.

And I have bad news for all of you.  Anybody can track down anybody.  So what?  Does that fact trump integrity?
I say "No." It not recklessness, it's convictions.  Try it sometime, you might learn to believe in something.

 This is my last posting.  No one will be convinced by any arguments.  It't like arguing religion, or politics, or morals.
We can track down any researcher and go back to the middle ages when knowledge was held by a select few (oddly enough usually church officials).  That's not the world I want to live in.  I am stopping here, no more--too many nut cases out there who want to believe what they always have regardless of the argument.  Welcome to Earth.

[19th century historian]

This is all very puzzling. If Dr. Pluss was simply doing research, why did he not tell anyone at the university about his project? Was his keeping it a secret from faculty/administration necessary? Was he afraid they would have quashed the project? In his defense, firing a professor, tenured or not, for his/her political beliefs seems dangerous. Should universities with conservative-minded administrations have fired professors that were involved in the Civil Rights Movement? No, even though most people today are more sympathetic toward the Civil Rights Movement than the White Power Movement. What is clearer to me, however, are the limitations, from a methodological point of view, of the "it was all for research" defense. Obviously, many historians are limited when it comes to first-hand experience with their subject matter. Thus, I am not sure that one has to "become" or even can "become" his/her subject to understand it. Does a Civil War historian have to wear a wool uniform in 90 degree weather and have someone shoot at him to understand that Civil War battles were dangerous and unpleasant? Civil War re-enactors perhaps get closer to "first-hand" experience than a scholar who only visits libraries and archives. But "playing" at something, as Dr. Pluss apparently did, and historical re-enactors do, is not to “become” the subject. One does not necessarily learn more about history by sleeping over at Antietam than he would by reading James McPherson. If we take Dr. Pluss at his word, he was merely pretending to be a Neo-Nazi. If so, is his first hand experience more legitimate than someone who studies Neo-Nazis at a distance? Either you understand your subject or don't, either admire it or not. Aping it will not necessarily provide further insights. Historians can at best retain their objectivity; they can never reproduce a complete portrait of their subject. Is doing a Neo-Nazi radio show more thorough than someone who has done exhaustive research by way of archival sources? I think not. And if one wants to espouse hate speech without putting his/her job at risk, I suggest that person practice in front of the mirror (but not the kids, please). If a teacher had to "become" every subject taught in a classroom, his/her head would explode from the strain. Dr. Pluss certainly has a right to approach history however he wants (as long as it’s not hurting anyone). But he seems to have paid a high price for a methodology that is no more revealing than (great gods!) traditional ways of doing history. What he has done is history, sure, or performance art or journalism or sociology. But it's not necessarily a better type of history.

[%sig%]

[jt]

Loren Wingblade  wrote:

" Many of the attacks on Dr. Pluss have been ad hominem attacks. When you do this -- you better believe that not signing your name is an act of cowardice."

The cowardice issue has already been addressed -- not signing one's name may be also described as an act of prudence.  The problem to be addressed is not a question of heroism or cowardice but  of valid vs fallacious reasoning.

[js]

It is too bad that the wonderfully-named Loren Wingblade, Ph.D. will not be posting anymore. Perhaps he will read others' posts, though I do not believe that he is likely to understand why attacking others' anonymity is so spurious an argument.

How is Dr. Pluss's "methodology" different from George Orwell's or Jack London's? Where is the breakthrough?

[Prof. Ron Auerbach]

It's very common for undercover officers and journalists to "pretend" to be a part of something in order to do a story or nab somebody.  However, there's a difference between joining a Neo-Nazi group for "research" purposes vs. actively participating in their activities such as beating somebody up.

So I say it's ok to become part of that world to learn about it, but one does have to draw a line that won't be crossed.

Prof. Ron Auerbach, M.B.A.
Edmonds Community College
Florida Community College

[Asst. Prof. & Family Therapist]

This is offensive and unsuitable as a forum topic.  No one with any critical thinking skills could entertain such an idea.

[Dr. Jacques Pluss]

Dear Professor Auerbach,  Thank you very much for your comment/post of February 21, 2006. Yes, I fully agree with you that harming someone does NOT fall into the legitimate category of "infiltrating" a group for journalistic or historical research. In point of fact, it was when the NSM requested (required is more like it) that I do a "White Viewpoint" broadband broadcast urging members and sympathizers to show up for the first Toledo Rally (October 10, as I recall) and be ready to engage in street violence that I called it quits for certain (I'd gathered enough material on the White Power Movement by then in any case, and was about to tender my resignation, so the two events did coincide).  Believe me, I found doing the more or less weekly radio broadcasts difficult enough, since I do  not center my life, my moral code, or my politics around issues of sadistic hatred (as the NSM does). Yet to become accepted in the Movement, there were certain things I had to do to play a believable role. I knew there would be a price to pay (look at all the internet sites claiming I really was a Nazi who simply got tired of the NSM or some such nonsense), but that's the name of the game, as one says. This will all be clarified more deeply in my volume on the White Power Movements, which I suspect will appear around January, 2007.  Sincerely, Dr. Jacques Pluss, Director, Aargau Books, LLC.

[%sig%]