Blogging with our pants falling down
Trail of crumbs: AL Daily pointed me to a fine New York Review of Books essay by Simon Leys on George Orwell, and a passage that put me in mind of Lisa Fullam’s recent post on blogging, and the despair some feel at the way we often treat each other in our virtual world. To wit:
Even in the heat of battle [Leys writes], and precisely because he distrusted ideology—ideology kills—Orwell remained always acutely aware of the primacy that must be given to human individuals over all “the smelly little orthodoxies.” His exchange of letters (and subsequent friendship) with Stephen Spender provides a splendid example of this. Orwell had lampooned Spender (“parlour Bolshevik,” “pansy poet”); then they met: the encounter was actually pleasant, which puzzled Spender, who wrote to Orwell on this very subject. Orwell, who later became a friend of Spender’s, replied:
“You ask how it is that I attacked you not having met you, & on the other hand changed my mind after meeting you…. [Formerly] I was willing to use you as a symbol of the parlour Bolshie because a. your verse…did not mean very much to me, b. I looked upon you as a sort of fashionable successful person, also a Communist or Communist sympathiser, & I have been very hostile to the C.P. since about 1935, and c. because not having met you I could regard you as a type & also an abstraction. Even if, when I met you, I had happened not to like you, I should still have been bound to change my attitude, because when you meet someone in the flesh you realise immediately that he is a human being and not a sort of caricature embodying certain ideas. It is partly for this reason that I don’t mix much in literary circles, because I know from experience that once I have met & spoken with anyone I shall never again be able to show any intellectual brutality towards him, even when I feel that I ought to, like the Labour M.P.s who get patted on the back by dukes & are lost forever more.”
Which immediately calls back to mind a remarkable passage of Homage to Catalonia: Orwell described how, fighting on the front line during the Spanish civil war, he saw a man jumping out of the enemy trench, half-dressed and holding his trousers with both hands as he ran:
“I did not shoot partly because of that detail about the trousers. I had come here to shoot at ‘Fascists’; but a man who is holding up his trousers isn’t a ‘Fascist,’ he is visibly a fellow creature, similar to yourself, and you don’t feel like shooting at him.”
Perhaps a good image to keep in mind for those in the blogging trenches?
Funny stuff. maybe all the CW ‘constant posters’ should meet somewhere, all wearing very loose pants and no belts. [Women too of course] At least their hands, but not mouths, would be kept busy. No guns though. I suspect some would be willing to drop their pants in order to get off a shot..
Orwell makes two points here, actually: first, he cannot be nasty to someone he has met, and, second, he grants there are times when one *ought* to be tough on someone one has met, e.g., on a duke looking for a favorable vote from an MP.
This country really has to think through just what rudeness is as distinguished from speaking truth to power and denouncing wrongdoing publicly. Yes, nasty, accusatory talk is ugly — it can’t help but be, but ugly is not a moral category and being nice is not synonymous with being virtuous. There are times when it is necessary to say ugly truths. (Remember Bonhoeffer’s classic statement, “First they came for the Communists . . .”)
The question is when is it necessary to make public accusations? Many people think that “scandal” should be avoided at all costs. Avoidance of scandal was one reason the bishops covered up the injustices of the abusers — to say ugly things about priests is ugly itself, it destroys reputations, and it “gives scandal”. But some behaviors *are* scandalous, those priests should have been accused immediately, and there was a duty to make those crimes known. Further, when accusations don’t sink in, they need to be repeated until they do.
It is another matter to insult people who are not guilty of sins or crimes deserving of public censure or legal action. That is rudeness and needs to be avoided, but just what constitutes rudeness? Surely just because a statement is true that does not alone justify our saying it. And surely negative feelings and evaluations of other persons’ characters are not relevant in serious discussions . Such insults as “You are stupid, dishonest, and pig=headed”, even if *true*, are always counter-productive. In a serious discussion there have to be judgments that the other fellow is mistaken, but those statements are about the person’s *opinion*, not about the person’s *character*.
Sounds as though Orwell was a human being. Nice. Thanks for the quote.
Yes, I suppose that may be one reason why some people in internet text-only forums sometimes seem to run immediately to attacking another writer, rather than to arguing against what the writer was writing about. Perhaps this is due partly to the disembodied nature of the text, the absence of a body and a voice – an entire person. I don’t know, though – that explanation sounds a little forced. I’m inclined to feel that someone who engages in personal attacks in text-only forums is likely to be unpleasant in real life, too. Of course, I have nothing but intuition, based on some flimsy textual evidence, on which to base that.
Peter Steinfels, in another thread here, expresses dismay over the lack of civility – or worse – that he’s come across in the online comments to Commonweal or NCR material. It could be useful to keep two things in mind when confronting this sort of stuff. First, people commenting on an essay or a story are unlikely to be writers themselves, and because of that, their rhetorical armamentarium may be limited. They may simply write the way they speak. Second, the universe of commenters will naturally be populated by opinionated people. Readers who are content to read and learn will likely have little to say.
Anybody who thinks CWL is some sort of nadir in human discourse needs to recall the blog by the individual known as “Diogenes” that Grant wrote about some years back.
Moreover, I take a dim view of the argument that “live” meetings are any more civil. I’ve seen far worse behavior among “grown ups” at meetings in the private sector and in academia than anything I can think of on here. Walking in with loose pants (so to speak) would be like chumming the waters at some of those functions.
That nobody on CWL has ever reached the “Diogenes” level of ugly doesn’t excuse bad behavior, of course. We should always and everywhere strive to shed more light than heat. But I think people need to get some perspective.
As for Ed’s suggestion we all meet up, I have repeatedly invited people to the local parish’s Men’s Club Lenten Fish Fry (which again fetched more than the K of C’s effort the next town over even WITHOUT the beloved hush puppies), but nobody ever shows up.
ISTM that one reason we’re tempted to let fly on blogs is because, unlike ordinary conversations in which there are only, say, three or four participants, on blogs there are usually many people criticizing our opinions, and some of them know more than we do, or claim they do. So we become extra self-defensive. The cognitive dissonance becomes awfully loud as we strain to keep our self-images intact, using less than persuasive arguments in the process (which just makes the dissonance worse).
I’m surprised by the America blog “On All Things”. The blog itself usually has civil, relatively balanced or at least diverse posts, but the comments are incredibly polarized. It’s like a shouting match between two extremes. Why do they comment there, and what is it that attracts them to that blog, I wonder?
Fr. Z’s blog, that I glance at sometimes, is quite civil as long as no heretical progressive ventures there. They have the funniest arguments. For example, recently, some beautiful glassware chalices were being made especially for a Mass presided by the Holy Father. But glassware is explicitly forbidden by Canon Law! So, what’s the Holy Father going to do? If he uses a glass chalice, is that wrong because it’s against Canon Law? Or does the fact that he, the Holy Father, uses it, de facto make it right, just for that special occasion? On such technical subjects, the commenters can hsave lively but civil discussions. They feel that that blog is like a safe place for them, a place where they can express their conservative ideas without being shot at. They can even express without fear some of their occasional questions when they’re confused about something. They can be comforted, they sometimes bring their troubles, and they pray for one another. Setting aside their incessant attacks on “liberals” and on “the spirit of Vatican II”, other than that I can see that it’s a nice blog that gathers and helps a community of like-minded, quite devout people.
Claire–what you said (about “In All Things”)!
(Side note on the glass chalice story: in a nearby diocese, the bishop sent a letter reminding parishes of the rules re approved materials for sacred vessels. Immediately after, the local church goods store, acting on its own, instructed an employee to destroy every glass or crystal chalice in the store. Sell to another religion or rite? Pawn off on the local Society for Creative Anachronism? Repurpose into teeny tiny birdbaths? Nope. Break into shards. Crazy.)
The Irish must self-claim a dispensation. Our parish uses Waterford crystal chalices all the time. Sort of like the bye we give ourselves during lent for the Friday night St. Patrick’s party, complete with corned beef.
I don’t care about rude bloggers. Blogging is writing and it is either good writing or bad writing. All trolls are bad writers and they invariably bore everyone to death. Good writers tend to last.
I think there is a simple form of charity towards one’s opponent that goes like this. To engage a person that one disagrees with, one has to be able to construct the opponent’s position as though any reasonable person could hold it. If you can do that, and do it well by writing about it well, you can then usually deconstruct it without making the other person angry and you are half way towards having a conversation. Relying on the force of one’s brilliantly reasoned argument alone is like relying on the force of one’s brilliantly gorgeous countenance alone. Most of the people you convince will either be blind or look exactly like you.
But, can we have good discussions without intimacy? And can we have intimacy without some level of personal friendship, or at least some food and alcohol?
Since V2 and the welcome emphasis on ecumenism, there has been a strong emphasis on dialogue. But it seems to em that dialogue — reaching to the other/one’s opponent — to find what is good in his position is not at all the same thing as *discussion*. Discussion implies analysis, summoning of evidence, linguistic analysis, and argumentation. This is not so pleasant as dialogue, but that is the nature of the beast, and it is necessary if we are to improve our own ideas and help others to improve theirs.
Garry Wills, currently being discussed in another thread, is as good an example of a Catholic apologist as you’ll find these days. Note that Wills doesn’t just dialogue, he discusses, criticizing his opponents even severely when necessary. This has won him respect on all sides, and rightly so. But he is the Southern gentleman to the end — no name-calling, even when he expertly dispatches bad ideas.
Sadly, within the Church, critical analysis is too often viewed as disloyalty, and it’s turning the Church into the cult that the Pope seems to think is good enough. Yes, self-criticism is the most difficult of all, but humility requires it.
Perhaps a good image to keep in mind for those in the blogging trenches?
———
I don’t see blogging or commenting on blogs as anything like trench warfare. The metaphor seems to belittle those brave soldiers who fought in actual trenches in actual wars.
A woman had a trenchknife on Antiques Roadshow last night. Scary thing. The knife end could be used to disembowel an enemy, and the knucks end could be used to break his face.
Hardly the same as disagreeing over unprovable claims about the invisible.
(Happy V-E Day to one and all! And Happy 127th Birthday to our great President Harry S. Truman!)
I think that a lot of the back and forth at “In All Things” is about those who attack or support the”liberal Jesuits” and it’s their magazine and blog site.
At least, they expect posters to identify themselves by name.
(BTW, the latest thread is the continuing story and anguish over the(ugly?) sacking of Bishop Morris -the thread comes from Jesuit Father Brennan of the Catholic University there.)
Perhaps that topic is too hard for the folks who champion civility by saying we can never investigate too much into the background or motivations of those who write, that civility entails always presuming good intentions, seeing others holding their pants and that if we met someone vis-a-vis who we thought was doing harm or injustice, we would only call him/her out nicely.
Or so it seems…..
Bob N. –
I’d say the issues needing review are: What is civility? Is there a specifically Christian form of civility? Do the requirements of civility change from circumstance to circumstance? And, yes, is “ugly” a moral category?
you’re right Bob, we never heard back from Grant about why the thread he closed was “ugly”.
” . . . the folks who champion civility by saying we can never investigate too much into the background or motivations of those who write, that civility entails always presuming good intentions, . . . ”
Bob N. –
Yes, that’s my first problem — should we always presume good intentions on the part of others? I say we usually should. But when someone’s behavior is bad we sometimes have an obligation to call them down (or out, as the new phrase puts it). No, I don’t think we’re obliged to call down/out all bad behavior,. but sometimes we are. The question then becomes: when?