The latest comment flare up yesterday was discouraging because it was people who are frequent commenters here. They went at it like children and it made me think of some of the faculty fights I've been involved in over the years.
At times like that "collegiality" is often brought up, and I don't bet that's a foreign idea to the CM readers. Let me clip for you some parts of an AAUP statement about collegiality that I think might be fodder.
- Historically, “collegiality” has not infrequently been associated with ensuring homogeneity, and hence with practices that exclude persons on the basis of their difference from a perceived norm. The invocation of “collegiality” may also threaten academic freedom.
- In the heat of important decisions regarding promotion or tenure, as well as other matters involving such traditional areas of faculty responsibility as curriculum or academic hiring, collegiality may be confused with the expectation that a faculty member display “enthusiasm” or “dedication,” evince “a constructive attitude” that will “foster harmony,” or display an excessive deference to administrative or faculty decisions where these may require reasoned discussion. Such expectations are flatly contrary to elementary principles of academic freedom, which protect a faculty member’s right to dissent from the judgments of colleagues and administrators.
- A distinct criterion of collegiality also holds the potential of chilling faculty debate and discussion. Criticism and opposition do not necessarily conflict with collegiality. Gadflies, critics of institutional practices or collegial norms, even the occasional malcontent, have all been known to play an invaluable and constructive role in the life of academic departments and institutions. They have sometimes proved collegial in the deepest and truest sense.
FULL AAUP Statement.
Q: Should the CM community be expected to be collegial?
I don't come here to work. I come to kick my shoes off, vent, and be entertained. If I wanted to be challenged and debated, I'd go back to work. That happens there with my real world colleagues.
ReplyDeleteYou are fortunate, Darla. My colleagues are such a bunch of dullards, not much better than our students.
DeleteTricky. First, I'm a long time reader, back into the RYS days. I don't comment much because I don't have much misery and what I do have is irritating rather than soul crushing. But I value CM (as I valued RYS) as a community. Second, I think that "collegiality" is a dangerous concept IF it means don't rock the boat and go along with tradition, the majority, the norm, etc. I'd argue that a little boat rocking is generally a good thing. Third, I have years of experience moderating online academic fora and so I sympathize with the plight of the moderators.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of answering Van's question, yes(ish). I think the advice given in couples therapy is actually quite useful for this sort of online community -- use "I" statements; don't speak *for* others, speak *to* them; accept and respect the existence of viewpoints contrary to your own; and don't call each other names. Those aren't especially high standards, but this is a shared space, and we have to get along to at least some extent if we aren't to kill the whole thing off.
Attacking someone else is never collegial.
ReplyDeleteAnd that happens here sometimes.
I don't think of this as a place where collegiality is necessarily relevant, especially since "collegial" in CM terms seems to me to be a word that's interchangeable with the word "nice".
ReplyDeleteI don't feel bound to be "nice". I don't feel bound to withhold myself from speaking my mind. I feel bound to be honest.
But I was raised amongst quarrelsome Jews. It does not bother me that often people don't "get along". I see that as just the general way of things.
I come here for the wet bar (and the leftovers in the fridge), but I also like watching Fab roll around naked on the shag carpet when he's on a bad acid trip. Is that collegial?
ReplyDeleteAnd the burritos!
DeleteI just wish that we could remember that we have a common enemy: EVERYONE ELSE.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't to say that we don't get offensive sometimes, but maybe instead of jumping on each other for that, we could turn it on the head and return to hating on EVERYONE ELSE.
I'm glad you posted this, not because I think CM should be "collegial," but because it confirmed the sense that I have that every time someone opens their goddamned mouth and utters the word "collegial," I should be translating it "here's a shit sandwich for you to eat."
ReplyDeleteIn re the comment stuff -- yeah. Shitstorm. But I woke up to a *real* shitstorm at work today, so . . . yeah. Here's perspective. Here's comments being put into it.
No, we should not be trying for collegiality, but rather for camaraderie, of the sort between people sharing foxholes. That does not mean we get along; we still get into raging arguments and fistfights, but basically have each other's backs when the shit really hits the fan.
ReplyDeleteHear hear! That should be in the Rules of Misery.
DeleteI second this motion!
DeleteI, too, like this take on the CM group ethic.
DeleteKey distinction, this, between collegiality & camaraderie -- a great point that applies perfectly to the Misery!
DeleteI was always under the impression that, when the shit hit the fan, we would all be using each others' skulls as drinking gourds. Only the most froofy drinks, too. Daiquiris.
DeleteI don't want to use the collegial term because that doesn't seem to apply to us. But I think we should be respectful of each other. Disagreeing is not name-calling, and when it gets to that level, this page is too much like the rest of the blogosphere. And not a place I want to spend my time.
ReplyDeleteI think it's desirable to be collegial, but if people see wrong, they should be able to speak out about it.
ReplyDeleteWell I can try to be more collegial sometimes, but in general, I like what DrN said.
ReplyDeleteLikewise.
Delete