[KS] Re: Subject: Re: Moderated classroom
Richard C. Miller
rcmiller at students.wisc.edu
Thu Oct 5 06:27:59 EDT 2000
REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________
At 10:08 AM 10/4/00 -0400, Frank Hoffmann wrote:
>
>In response to Richard Miller's post: I very much sympathize with
>some basic statements in that post. It seems to be a bad thing to
>moderate a discussion list, any discussion list, since it basically
>limits freedom of speech in that particular forum. So I don't think
>that we have to be "congratulated" having gone as far as to change
>the list policies. But I wasn't against this either, because we saw
>this list going down the drain *as an academic list*. The very
And herein is my particular complaint. I am not against moderation per
se,
but I have reservations about the value of it in enforcing a fuzzily
defined notion like "academic," particularly in a list with a broad
mandate
like "Korean Studies." It is easy enough to remove posts that are
totally
irrelevant, such as sure-fire ways to earn money surfing the internet,
as
well as those that are unnecessarily inflammatory. But what constitutes
a
valid "academic" question? And how detailed do we go--is an ironic
comment
about "dogribmun" non-academic, even if it summarizes a critique of the
apparently academic subject of transliteration?
I appreciate Frank's suggestion that the problem is with the field
itself--and, indeed, the tussle over what constitutes valid academic
discussion occurs everywhere, not just in Korean Studies. To brand it
"culture wars" (which I should point out is not in Frank's post) is a
bit
overblown, I think, but certainly there are strongly opposed ideas of
what
constitutes academic discussion and appropriate topics for such
discussion.
To me, "academic" does not mean "technically detailed expert opinion"
but
rather "open to informed discussion without regard to immediate
utility."
An academic discussion to me is perfectly valid when based on personal
experience or opinion, which after all informs our "purer" thinking,
like
it or not. In addition, there are major disciplines for which the
anecdotal
and the everyday are precisely the focus of analysis and theory. There
is
no question, for example, that the practice of eating dog has come up
again
and again in Korean relations with America and Europe, whether there is
a
"scientific" basis for one position on the subject or another. That very
conflict, which some of the posts showed can be quite violent in at
least a
symbolic way, is a perfectly valid topic for academic discussion. And if
the first step an American or European scholar has to take is to disavow
the accepted views of their culture by recounting their own enjoyment of
eating the forbidden meat; if the ambivalent character of Korean and
foreign attitudes toward the practice--regardless of their
provenance--is
encapsulated in joking about it, all this, too, is useful information
for
those of us interested in culture.
I will reiterate that my preferred solution to boredom with the list is
participation. If the thought that there are limits that may be enforced
by
a third party emboldens you to participate, fine. Ask a question. Tell
us
what you're researching (especially if you want assistance, please!).
Let
us know what happens later. If you don't agree with something you read,
explain what you disagree with and why in a reflective way. By all
means,
if the fact of disagreement becomes more important than the topic of
disagreement, take it offline. But otherwise, the cure for boredom is
involvement, not withdrawal.
Tolerance and participation--surely we can handle that.
Richard
--Richard C. Miller
--UW School of Music
--Manado, Indonesia
--rcmiller at students.wisc.edu
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~rcmiller/
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list