> "non-academics". I find more of my theories and insights about conflict
> come from the people I work with than from a lot of the books I read --
> although I also find it helpful to put them in dialogue with one another.
yeah, i think the connection between theory and practice is IMPORTANT.
its the same idea as "the personal is the political". what i was trying
to point out is the supreme imbalance i witness on this list, and in my
experiences with academia...as well as in myself, being more academic
than most people i know. and i think the process of finding that balance
is something ALL of us should go through. i dont believe there are two
separate camps of academics and activists(or spiritualists). i think
neither is complete on its own. because i see "academics" for the most
part bordering on vanguardism.
and i see a lot of "anti-intellectual" activists, especially radical eco
activists in many ways ignorant of complicated political dynamics in the
culture.
while i think there ARE people who are more inclined to one than the
other, i think that is based on our socialization into this dualistic
culture....and by the way i dont think being "intellectual" necessarily has
anything to do with academia.
> For example, your statement that maybe I have my head up my butt
> presumably because I am uncomfortable with conflict, is not
> something I have encountered on other lists. It is quite graphic and I
> might use it myself on occasion, but probably not with someone I don't
> know, have never met, and whose views on conflict and confrontation I do
> not have any way of knowing. (Actually, I used the phrase just today
> when referring to my fellow voters in the state of Virginia who are
> probably going to elect the closest thing I have seen to a fascist as
> their next Senator! If Ollie North is elected, I will be embarrassed to
> admit I am from Virginia, but that is another discussion.)
to clarify, this wasnt a statement directed at you necessarily, its more
directed at the fear of conflict that i think is connected to the
academic styles (as well as the class privilege) of many of the
more vocal people on this list... and it isnt about being pro-violence
really. its about respecting and understanding passion, rage and anger
as vital aspects of our whole selves, and as aspects that have been
manipulated through complex socialization to encourage us to use them to
maintain the culture's power structure.....and its about trying to
understand why as academics we tend to shy away from it in favor of
rational, intellectual analysis..and why you want to decide "where they
are not necessary"...... and how that is related to maintaining the status
quo. (as well as silencing people who see the world in different ways,
whether it be non class or race-privileged people...or someone who
connects with the ideas we talk about through a thoughtful,
experiential relationship with the world rather than devouring books)
the "graphic" imagery i used (head up your butt) is my everyday language,
and really, im not interested in changing it so you feel more comfortable
with your whitewashed mannerisms. im sorry you took it personally but i
have a hard time seeing why the fact that we dont know each other makes
that imagery somehow offensive.
i also need to say (though this might offend some) that
when i read what you said i felt like i was talking to my mother. now i love
mom, but she represents a lot of things i think this list was created to
challenge, and so i think seeing that on this list (as well as a lot of
the other uptight gentility in the form of scolding me for my tone of
voice,) is a sign that many of us are not ready to let go of some really
important baggage.
-anne
