I think you may be right, Stephen, that there is "no one else" reading at the moment, your critique that my writing is too blurry ("linguistic meanderings") is well-taken and consonant with other recent feedback. However, its also, I think, in part constituted by the intersubjective condition of talking outloud to myself. I think that tends to occur on Reflexivity when there is a dearth of "audience" or at least when it seems to be so.
You're also accurate, I think, in characterizing your discourse as an expression of "perhaps white / straight / male / educated" power. It is. I return to the thread on "separate knowing". And a bit Habermasian at that. I appreciate much in your critique, of all that I have not made clear, and I twinge a bit that I'm such a slow learner in this regard, but the construction of meaning occurs between us, so if you feel "psychologized" its 50% your doing. If we're having a moral disagreement (and I'm not sure we are, it was presented as an hypothesis), it has to do with acknowledging the presence of the psychological, of which "desire" may be our most tangible expression.
So here are two strands in the weft of our dialogue: is addressing the psychological or not a moral decision? And what of desire?
I think your push (and I use this term-for-talk deliberately) against psychologizing may be moral, as you are resisting attributions from me about the motivations or impulses of others (such as yourself). Yes, I agree this is problematic. Does that mean it shouldn't be done? I'm not sure. I suspect most of us engage in this kind of other-analysis occasionally, at least. The only way I know to test it is to say something about it; keeping such speculations to oneself is much more subjective. Are you ideologically opposed to the popularity of psychologizing in contemporary culture? Fine - but regardless of the extent to which it is constructed, it is a facet of intersubjectivity, of human relations which isn't going away. So, again I ask, in the spirit of clarity about the meaning we are co-constructing - is this a moral disagreement or merely a "push" for/against the kind of discourse we each wish to enact?
Desire as a point of specific critique is useful to me on two levels: it allows an opening to clarify my response to anonymous' concern about being studied via contributions to Reflexivity and, as said above, illustrates the psychological in a more tangible way. Let's take the latter first. You say I conceptualize desire as a form of lack, which I don't dispute (at least not until I think on it more). But it does not follow that I necessarily then assume or expect others to meet/satisfy that desire, especially on the individual level. I think you may read in (psychologize?) assumptions about the target of desire - not that I'm opposed to personal satisfaction (!), but I am offering, in the terms I know, to participate in the construction/constitution of shared desire. I'll own my 50% of linguistic production that sends us down that road, but why do you persist in highlighting it? You misinterpret me and my commitment to Reflexivity. I continue to pose it as the easiest, most practical option until such time as another venue is created. The intention to produce another site doesn't have to disqualify continued participation here.
Reflexivity as an object of study. In truth, my intention here has been, reflexively, my own development as an academic. It is my consciousness, my epistemology that is the object represented by Reflexivity. To the extent that others do participate, more intersubjective data comes into view. I value that. But I'm not studying the department or people's contributions here per se. I do consider the dynamics and discourses of the department quite often because that's what I do, but to actually embark on a study requires permission and consent which I don't have.
There is a history by which I've tried to wangle such permission! In Leda's course on Social Impact of Technology I ran my first blog with consent. It's remnants seem only to be the last series of posts I made. I've used blogs since in most of the classes I've taught, always emphasizing their public nature. I'm becoming more deliberate about what I think I may be able "to do" with them and making consent procedures more explicit. I *did* write a paper about the discourse in one thread of the Democracy, Rhetoric, and Performance class last fall, which was done without prior consent as I had no idea I would wind up doing that until after the semester was concluded. Should I have anticipated? Damn those weak telepathy skills! Did I misjudge the members of this group as to their willingness to have their collective (not individual!) discourse examined? I have received post-consent from half of them and haven't yet pursued those who didn't respond at all; I suppose I should get busy.
Meanwhile, there was also last year's Mentoring Project. Which provided an opportunity to look at domestic-international (mostly) student relations within the department. Which utilized an extensive consent process.
Whether or not this history (memory) allays or increases concern about my intentions and integrity is yet to be co-constructed.
I did not say that the linguistic meanderings of a drunken lunatic were not interesting, but merely that I do not have a civic responsibility to act upon themÖ
On psychologizing, first. Although I do agree that it is a dominant (or the predominant) mode of talk in (American) public about emotions, values, and judgmentsóhence a moral dimensionóI say so with alarm. Dr. Philís psycho-tirades do not represent for me an achievement to be celebrated, and as a rhetorician I take issue with a number of movements (Platonism, certain strands of Christianity, Cartesian dualism, certain manifestations of psychoanalysis, contemporary political pietism, etc.) that rely upon the both a fetish of the individualís inner world and a psychological-moral discourse to enact order upon the disruptive. Understood thusly, I would bluntly argue that you are often too pious about Reflexivity, and justify its existence (and imposed order upon others made there) through recourse to language use that centers around individual motives and impulses more than socially constructed and negotiated ones. I do believe, then, that there is a moral issue at stake here, but not just in the mode of discourse or the discursive content of the postings. It is not just an issue of how people communicate with one another here and what they claim, but also what binds us together to act upon matters discussed here.
Let us not forget that we cannot take what unfolds here too sincerely. I am playing a character hereóperhaps a Habermasian oneóbut so are you, and anonymous, and anyone else who posts. Some of us may try to coordinate our characters more closely with our sincere performances of self; some of us may take to more cynical performances (in Goffmanís sense of that word, as per the used car salesperson). To have oneís motives routinely challenged and dissected suggests to me that the best trick of resistance is to create a character that will not budge for psycho-babble. But if the context of psychologizing were lifted, if people were not put in the position of having to defend motives, if conversation (agonistic or consensus-driven) were emphasized over investigation for what is ìhiddenî behind the words, then a different kind of communicative behavior may emerge here. As a visitor to this site, I feel my best interests lie in protecting my ìinner worldî because my inner world seems to be in question and at stake rather than, say, my participation in a polity, in public judgments, and in continual negotiations of social contracts.
Psychologizing is a concern to me because it suggests there is a proper way to think, to talk, to act, and one that is usually predetermined by a pious mapping out of particular interests. So the best form of resistance to that, it seems to me, to make the weaker the stronger (as the sophists would encourage us to do) lies in throwing up a wall built of the same moral caliber with a different interactional aim and different social end. Hence the reason that I continue, indefatigably, to argue that Reflexivity cannot be a site for public and democratic discourse as it currently exists and unfolds through the lenses that mark it, namely those that inspect for personal motive coordinated with moralism, are prone to accusations that are then exempted from criticism on the grounds of eminent (and immanent) feeling, wander into very private domains, and bear traces of a history that do not admit to collective genesis. If my choice is between Dr. Phil and Dr. Habermas, I will go with Dr. Habermas without hesitation, because at least then the idealism is directed towards public constitutions rather than privatized coordination with one personís identity construction and performance of self.
Second, the rhetoric of your posting admits as much. Look at it the metaphors used, such as ìtalking out loud to myself.î In the defense / apologia in response to anonymous, you write that the primary reason for the creation and maintenance of Reflexivity is your ìown development as an academic.î If this were a forensic debate, I would rest my case on that assertion alone. How is it possible for any visitor to this site to experience (feel / think / perform /embody) the condition of consubstantiality or at least mutual investment in desires and communication necessary for the constitution of a public if, indeed, we are reminded in not-so subtle terms that this website exists for you to reflect upon your own development? I am not asserting that identity construction and self-discovery / self-invention or personal motivations are unwelcome in public and democratic exchanges, but I am making a case that the kind of work necessary for those ends differ exponentially from the social work of participation in a public. And hence my critique (that is, an attempt to call into crisis) of your performance of desire here. It is not that I wish to eradicate your desire: you are a friend and colleague and fellow human. Your desires matter to me. But I do not wish to called upon to ratify your personal desires under the guise of public participation. If you wish for me to care about Reflexivity, you must do the rhetorical work of showing me why it matters; if you wish for me to do my part to construct a public here, you must persuade me that it will not be in vain.
In general, I donít have the problem that anonymous has in terms of using Reflexivity for an object of study. I presume what is written here is in the public record, or that it is not fully privatized space in the manner that emails, letters, and phone conversations are. I certainly understand why any of us who post here would be uncomfortable in it being tracked back, especially when we write in haste or with youthful vigor and naivety (I myself am an expert in the art of juvenilia). But that means there are three possible undertakings for Reflexivity: (1) as a site for public discourse and exchange; (2) as a potential object of study; (3) as a means to track your personal development as an academic. (There are perhaps even more.) My point is that none of these inherently go with one another, and perhaps are even in opposition (as I suggest 1 and 3 are). Before this website can become OUR task, your task (since you are the creator of the site) is to consider and create an invitation to an ethical space whereby others may participate in these undertakings freely, and understand how they relate to one another. A blog set up collectively will bare different expectations and issues, as well as different histories and different configurations of desire, will it not?