next »

[acrimone]

To put it bluntly, are you trying to define liberalism and conservatism in the contemporary political moment, or are you trying to establish caricatures of each?

The former.

I merely think that the former might be accomplished by creating the latter, and seeing how closely one aligns with it.

[mrgrundy]

I can't figure out what the problem is with giving people a choice between smoking and non-smoking sections.

The problem is that the choice is illusory. The smoking section converts the non-smoking into smoking. Smoke abhors a vacuum.

Ah, thanks.

Though by that logic, there should be a law against making people choose between Republican or Democrat as the choice is equally illusory. ;)   Only those relative few seated any distance from the smoking section will believe having a choice has any impact.

[acrimone]

So, and I know you're not interested in canons, but this is a thought that fits with the whole discussion:  The question becomes -- who is leaving these folks out of the canon?   Publishers?  Authors?  People who do not study them?  People who do not teach them?  How can you study what you do not know exists?  Are the more conservative factions in the field keeping them out of the canon?  Hence, is it the more conservative elements of the generally assumed to be liberal theatre profession keeping them out?  Is it fear of not selling the books?  Is it fear of teaching Dutchman to mostly white student bodies at schools in the middle range of this country to which books are marketed?  Is it fear of reinforcing stereotypes?  Is it fear of alienating students?  There is no easy answer.  Certainly, we teach Baraka now and he is in more books than Megan Terry will ever be, and she is by far the most well-known female playwright from the group I mention.  Why is that?  Are we less threatened by Baraka than Feminists?  Are we, as a society, convinced that his words cannot hurt us because they are so rhetorical?  Is it just easier to discount the feminists because they were not made Poet Laureate and were a fairly short-lived movement which morphed into some more socially acceptable?  (More palatable theatre like Wasserstein, for example.)  Is it easier to ignore Terry because her entire work has not been as radical as some of her earlier works?  

This could all be quite interesting, but my point -- that liberals are far and away more willing to denounce a whole person on the basis of discriminatory words or behavior -- wasn't about who was being victimized, but who was the victimizer.  In my own experience, liberals are more than happy to tear into their own at the first sign of heresy and/or apostasy.  

While I'm still not sure it's fair to say that Baraka has been dismissed as a racist because of his "discriminatory" views, I do understand what it is you're trying to say.  And while I'm not sure that this sort of "institutional" view of reactions to discrimination is really an applicable or useful set of counterexamples for the individual thought processes & behaviors that I'm trying to pin down, it's interesting nonetheless.

[acrimone]

To put it bluntly, are you trying to define liberalism and conservatism in the contemporary political moment, or are you trying to establish caricatures of each?

The former.

I merely think that the former might be accomplished by creating the latter, and seeing how closely one aligns with it.

I should clarify: I'm not so much trying to define liberalism and conservative, as I am trying to pin down what it means to call someone a liberal or a conservative.

[iomhaigh]

This could all be quite interesting, but my point -- that liberals are far and away more willing to denounce a whole person on the basis of discriminatory words or behavior -- wasn't about who was being victimized, but who was the victimizer.  In my own experience, liberals are more than happy to tear into their own at the first sign of heresy and/or apostasy.  

Are we basing evidence for nationwide definitions on your personal experiences now? 

[acrimone]

This could all be quite interesting, but my point -- that liberals are far and away more willing to denounce a whole person on the basis of discriminatory words or behavior -- wasn't about who was being victimized, but who was the victimizer.  In my own experience, liberals are more than happy to tear into their own at the first sign of heresy and/or apostasy.  

Are we basing evidence for nationwide definitions on your personal experiences now? 

Not my personal experience, but my experience, yes.  That experience includes going out looking for things (also called research in some circles) and asking lots and lots of intelligent people what they think.

Was that your only question?

[tenured_feminist]

Acrimone, how large was your N and did you use a snowball method of selecting your interviewees or something else? Were the interviews structured, semi-structured, or open ended? And can you explain your coding?

[acrimone]

Acrimone, how large was your N and did you use a snowball method of selecting your interviewees or something else? Were the interviews structured, semi-structured, or open ended? And can you explain your coding?

Was this supposed to be clever or condescending?

[tenured_feminist]

Was this supposed to be clever or condescending?

Both. Or are you the only person who's allowed to be clever and condescending?

[acrimone]

Was this supposed to be clever or condescending?

Both. Or are you the only person who's allowed to be clever and condescending?

Well, I'm certainly not the only one who's allowed to try.

I was just curious, since someone who actually wanted to know would probably just ask "What was your methodology?" without throwing around a bunch of jargon from an UG stats & research methods course.  With curiousity ruled out, that left either clever or condescending.

I confess it didn't cross my mind that you meant for it to be both.

[tenured_feminist]

OK, seriously.

Just asking about methodology doesn't answer the question, because methodology itself is a contested term and you wouldn't necessarily answer the questions that interest me most about the people you've been talking to. But my snark goes to the reliability of your findings, which to me actually isn't a very interesting question.

But you may be on to something interesting that could (if done by someone who really wanted to do it rather than a couple of blue-skying, insult-tossing internet folks) have something to say about ideology and social networks. Of course it's well known that people tend to hang out with people who share their political beliefs, though most people do have folks in their social networks who disagree with them. The more interesting question buried in your comments for me, though, is whether we tend to hang out with people who not only share our political standpoints but also map the political spectrum the same way we do.

[acrimone]

The more interesting question buried in your comments for me, though, is whether we tend to hang out with people who not only share our political standpoints but also map the political spectrum the same way we do.

That is an interesting question.  I certainly don't -- the constant disagreement I've had with friends, colleagues, and acquaintances regarding these terms is part of what made me interested in this issue in the first place.  (Although I confess that I'm naturally a devotee of the mantra "define your terms.")

But just as it's good to know whether you are really a liberal or conservative, it's good to know where you really stand with respect to people on other issues, including definitions.  Self-knowledge -- particularly the ability to place one's self in context -- is pretty cool.