Facebook/Blog Post

So, I realized kind of late that I was not exempt from posting this week simply because I am The Discussion Leader. In an effort to contribute to the conversation, I offer here the transcript of a mighty active facebook conversation that took place on my wall last night. It was based on a quote from Fendler's article (p. 309). While the quote doesn't have much to do with community literacy, it did actually cause community (as action) to occur. Friends who did not know one another began to interact and discuss the quote. They did not necessarily agree, as you can see, but, they were able to engage in civil communication. What I found most interesting was that, while the non-academics may have felt left out of the conversation, several of them chimed in to voice their difference.

LB "the separation of reason and affect perpetuates the assumption that reason is somehow objective and impartial; the separation does not recognize that systems of reason have been produced as the effects of culturally and historically specific power relations that always entail an array of human faculties."
Yesterday at 5:48pm

GG likes this.

AD I need a contextual definition of "affect" and "effect", as used in this article, to interpret what this statement means.
Yesterday at 5:49pm ·

LB "the term 'affect' can be taken to indicate an instinctual reaction to stimulation occurring before the typical cognitive considered necessary for the formation of a more complex emotion."

apply the common definition of "effects."
Yesterday at 5:57pm ·

AD So in other words: logic should not be considered empirically neutral just as instinctual reactions should not be considered intrinsically subjective?
Yesterday at 6:02pm ·

CS Source?
Yesterday at 7:51pm ·

GG But how can we demonize other people with our minds if we pay attention to our emotions :)?
Yesterday at 8:11pm ·

LB ad: pretty much
cs: "others and the problem of community" by lisa fendler
gg: i'm sure there is a way around this pesky theory...lol
Yesterday at 8:20pm ·

GG Ah, Fendler...I knew her...
Yesterday at 8:25pm ·

AD I can't believe Im saying this -- being a snob and an intellectual -- but philosophers really codify their language just to make their ideas sound more complex than they really are.
Yesterday at 8:26pm ·

GG They do, but, then again, who doesn't? I find the discourse of teenage girls very alienating, for example, but then: I'm not a teenage girl (at least I don't think I am).
Yesterday at 8:29pm ·

LB ad: you're no snob. :-)

gg: and you're no teenaged girl.
Yesterday at 8:32pm ·

AD The major difference is that teenage girls talk as they do out of necessity. They simply do not have the vocabulary to speak differently, even if they so desired. Philosophers deliberately choose their verbiage in order to feign a false assent into the cerebral stratosphere. How's my alienating intellectual alliteration? Quite proudly pompous, hehe.
Yesterday at 8:33pm ·

GG See, I would disagree: I'd say teenage girls are far more rhetorical in their word usage than we give them credit for. They don't talk the same way to their say English teacher, for example, as they do their friends.

Though clearly their is an institutional difference between teenagers and academic philosophers: I think at a fundamental level circulation matters more than anything else. Less people speak philosophical discourse, hence it seems more valuable.
Yesterday at 8:35pm ·

LB excellent thread. i'll have to post quotes more often!
Yesterday at 8:36pm ·

GG I'm stealing this quote for my collection, by the way...heh, heh...
Yesterday at 8:38pm ·

AD I consider academics to be like any other segregated subgroup. They feel alienated from the surrounding, mainstream community, thus they formulate their own codified language, which then only serves to accentuate the divide between them and the very people with whom they should be attempting to establish a discourse. Philosophical lingo is really just ebonics for nerds.
Yesterday at 8:42pm ·

LB steal away, my friend!
Yesterday at 8:43pm ·

GG I would pretty much agree with philosophers...but not all academics are engaged in that project. A lot of people in universities want to do engaged scholarship with communities outside the university, for example, and so they develop jargon that translates better.

At the same time, however: would we call doctors an alienated subgroup? Because they use some of the most alienating jargon there is.

Jargon is shorthand. It's a particular term that has a particular meaning in a particular community. The only difference between doctors and philosophers is that philosophers are not considered necessary members of our culture anymore.

Maybe we should continue this conversation on each others' walls rather than L's though. We're using our faculties to co-op her wall :).
Yesterday at 8:52pm ·

AD I would call doctors and alienat-ing subgroup. Their lingo is derived from Greek and Latin roots, which are maintained because of both tradition and choice. My father is a doctor, and I worked at a hospital for four years, so I can quite assuredly say that doctors are extremely proud of themselves and hate being brought down to the level of common folk. Notice that the only time understandable terms are used in medicine is when a company is trying to sell a new treatment: ie, "swine flu".

Complex verbiage is used to organize and maintain power of one group over the other. Look at credit card and cell phone contracts, legal documents, etc. Doctors, lawyers, and all the rest would like the general population to believe that their words are somehow necessary, that they are more accurate or descriptive, but this is not the case at all.

I think Lorelei enjoys this back-and-forth. :) At least I hope so.
Yesterday at 9:00pm ·

LB of course i do. my wall is your wall! :-)
Yesterday at 9:07pm ·

GG Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that power isn't a BIG part of this. I'm just saying there's a pragmatic meaning behind all of this. There are very good reasons why doctors, lawyers, philosophers and all kinds of professionals use jargon.

That use-value for them is inseparable from the institutionalization of knowledge that heralded the modern meritocracy. The ability to use these terms fluidly is power, definitely, but it doesn't have to be that way.

These terms can be liberating for people that encounter them and use them to help other people. The difference is between determination and choice. If jargon is always already alienating then it would mean that language is fixed, stable, and meaningful in an unproblematic way.

But language is slippery, complex, has multiple audiences, is contested, etc. Thus: it is never determined. Just because what you're saying is how things play out, often, in our society, doesn't mean that this determined to be the case. It's a product of certain historical conditions created by people. People with a lot of power, yes, but people all the same. THUS: it can be changed by people. It does change all the time. Every usage is a slight change. It's dynamic, not stable and fixed.
Yesterday at 9:16pm ·

GG By the by, I've got to go take Cynthia home and go to the gym, but feel free to respond and I'll respond later...
Yesterday at 9:18pm ·

AS Now THIS is a thread...I may have to augment my feeble coconut with a third hemisphere to fully comprehend all the details, but a fascinating read regardless...
Yesterday at 10:18pm ·


AD My hangover prevents me from commenting further. I am out of gas for now. Perhaps I will return tomorrow.
Yesterday at 10:20pm ·

GVB I agree with this statement but I had to read it about 5 times before I understood it. Maybe you just needed to use a lot more commas to give us pause to think. LOL You'll have to learn the language of the iliterate if you want to become the first woman president of the U.S.A. This academic lingo isn't going to be understood by the masses
Yesterday at 10:46pm ·


LB gvb: brilliant. you are awesome! :-)
Yesterday at 11:00pm ·

AS LB, methinks that "She is brilliant" fits GVB quite nicely as well...
Yesterday at 11:22pm ·

BB in a Chicago accent WTF?
10 hours ago ·

LB bb: that's my bro. keepin' it real. :-)
5 hours ago ·

DS Very interesting thread!