haha, yes, when I find yourself getting explicitly Foucauldian no double entrendre intended, but wouldn't he just have *loved* this? And Al's art? I know that (a) I'm doing Good Work (in all senses, political *and* academic), and (b) getting in too deep for an LJ meta!
I'd left the techno-social or "material" aspects of the text till last just by happenstance, but of course any discussion of how LJ's particular technology of use constrains and conditions communication is soooo huge, and for some reason I didn't want to go further into it without drawing on some of the literature. Even an Aspie like me know's that's sure to lead to 9823616 books piled on the bed and no room for sleep and in fact, no sleep. And no post either, lol. So it was a good place to simply indicate the connections and screech to a halt!
I'm glad you find my analysis cogent *and* interesting! I know this is a bit beyond the usual LJ meta, but OTOH, it *was* an academic Fail. It deserves to be addressed in full regimentals.
Maybe with some further review, it can go somewhere. *thinks* Like maybe, bringing in some of related fandom responses for a submission to "Media, Culture & Society" - although they're mainly European, but their readers are hip to discourse analysis; I suppose the US equivalents would be Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, they have been doing a bit of work on cyberculture and especially, online and fan activities as practices of resistance. At least submitting there would justify my pricey NCA membership, lol. Or Journal of CMC; they're definitely hip to work like danah boyd's and know what LJ is; but I haven't read them in a while and don't recall if they're clued in to critical perspectives.
The one problem with the US journals is - as always - that whether their perspective is critical studies or boringly hegemonic mainstream neoliberalism *koff*denial*koff they tend only to look at "cultural" features, i.e. class/gender/sexuality/ethnicity/politics etc. and ignore almost in their entirety the equally constitutive dimensions of science/technology/environment.
The Ogi problem is at least as much an effect of his "two cultures" scientism as it is sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and academic elitism with a dollop of failure to work intelligently across ethnicities. It's not just that Ogi & Sai are ignorant of the workings of class, race, ethnicity, gender, ability, sexuality, public sphere, and globalization. They also fail because they can't see their own extreme and unreflective biases about sciences and the "scientific method" (clearly, their program does *not* include anything on phil of science or Science Technol & Society studies!).
Ironically, many in fandom share these "Cartesian" biases, the assumption that Science Research produces Truth and is Not To Be Questioned. Coming as we do mainly from humanities and a bit of social sciences, fandom is equally conditioned by the "two cultures" binary. I wonder how much of the initial willingness to do the survey, and then to question Ogi only very politely at first, was caused by a general attitude of deference to Science. But the only places I've seen a lot of really, really good feminist critique of science and its positivist, hegemonic (and thus very masculinist, het, monologic, etc.) discourse is in Hypatia, and I'm definitely not up to their weight, lol. (Talk about looong articles!) Also, Hypatia's readers *like* academickese of the densest kind. (Even worse than the lit-crit babble of TWC, lol.) And I simply don't want to keep writing that way. It fucks with my brain and my personality, as well as separating me from the people I most like to be with. If I can't be interesting to my family and friends in fandom ... well, it's like that Groucho Marx club: a club that wanted me like that is one I don't want to join.
ANYWAY... Any ideas you have on the merits of this analysis, where I could take it, and submit it, would be most appreciated! But I imagine it's occurred to you and others, also - there could well be a little conference & "case study" edited volume just on this fail and its myriad aspects: the process, the many kinds of fail, and the many responses from "signal boosting" to art, action, new alliances, and how the "outside" media and RL react.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-05 06:39 pm (UTC)I'd left the techno-social or "material" aspects of the text till last just by happenstance, but of course any discussion of how LJ's particular technology of use constrains and conditions communication is soooo huge, and for some reason I didn't want to go further into it without drawing on some of the literature. Even an Aspie like me know's that's sure to lead to 9823616 books piled on the bed and no room for sleep and in fact, no sleep. And no post either, lol. So it was a good place to simply indicate the connections and screech to a halt!
I'm glad you find my analysis cogent *and* interesting! I know this is a bit beyond the usual LJ meta, but OTOH, it *was* an academic Fail. It deserves to be addressed in full regimentals.
Maybe with some further review, it can go somewhere. *thinks* Like maybe, bringing in some of related fandom responses for a submission to "Media, Culture & Society" - although they're mainly European, but their readers are hip to discourse analysis; I suppose the US equivalents would be Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, they have been doing a bit of work on cyberculture and especially, online and fan activities as practices of resistance. At least submitting there would justify my pricey NCA membership, lol. Or Journal of CMC; they're definitely hip to work like danah boyd's and know what LJ is; but I haven't read them in a while and don't recall if they're clued in to critical perspectives.
The one problem with the US journals is - as always - that whether their perspective is critical studies or boringly hegemonic mainstream neoliberalism *koff*denial*koff they tend only to look at "cultural" features, i.e. class/gender/sexuality/ethnicity/politics etc. and ignore almost in their entirety the equally constitutive dimensions of science/technology/environment.
The Ogi problem is at least as much an effect of his "two cultures" scientism as it is sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and academic elitism with a dollop of failure to work intelligently across ethnicities. It's not just that Ogi & Sai are ignorant of the workings of class, race, ethnicity, gender, ability, sexuality, public sphere, and globalization. They also fail because they can't see their own extreme and unreflective biases about sciences and the "scientific method" (clearly, their program does *not* include anything on phil of science or Science Technol & Society studies!).
Ironically, many in fandom share these "Cartesian" biases, the assumption that Science Research produces Truth and is Not To Be Questioned. Coming as we do mainly from humanities and a bit of social sciences, fandom is equally conditioned by the "two cultures" binary. I wonder how much of the initial willingness to do the survey, and then to question Ogi only very politely at first, was caused by a general attitude of deference to Science. But the only places I've seen a lot of really, really good feminist critique of science and its positivist, hegemonic (and thus very masculinist, het, monologic, etc.) discourse is in Hypatia, and I'm definitely not up to their weight, lol. (Talk about looong articles!) Also, Hypatia's readers *like* academickese of the densest kind. (Even worse than the lit-crit babble of TWC, lol.) And I simply don't want to keep writing that way. It fucks with my brain and my personality, as well as separating me from the people I most like to be with. If I can't be interesting to my family and friends in fandom ... well, it's like that Groucho Marx club: a club that wanted me like that is one I don't want to join.
ANYWAY... Any ideas you have on the merits of this analysis, where I could take it, and submit it, would be most appreciated! But I imagine it's occurred to you and others, also - there could well be a little conference & "case study" edited volume just on this fail and its myriad aspects: the process, the many kinds of fail, and the many responses from "signal boosting" to art, action, new alliances, and how the "outside" media and RL react.