Writings

For those of you who are wondering, I'm happily busy digging into the wonderful ethnographic world of education. As with many areas of the humanities and social sciences, the data obtained are subject to a wide range of interpretations. The trick is to try to see what really is there (a construct which is very elusive) and what is not (which is sometimes easier). The problem is when there are contested or contestable interpretations.

Actually, the contesting of interpretations or narratives is a good problem. It tends to allow for clarification of definitions, positions, and theories. The outcome may be polarised (for example, two diametrically opposed camps) or it may be reduced to some sort of compromise or consensus. All of these things can be dealt with in reasonable manner, although the debate may get heated at times.

The more serious problem occurs when the interpretation of data or a constructed narrative is not openly engaged. Suppose I say, "State A began life with more privileges than State B and that is the cause of A's later success." If we can define privilege satisfactorily and build a case, we can engage in a debate on the side that agrees or the side that disagrees with that statement. However, if we do not attempt this engagement, State B may feel victimised (or rarely, State A may feel its accomplishments are underestimated). These feelings may lead to bad blood.

It is the responsibility of the researcher to hedge some kinds of declarations with some form of reader guidance. For example, if something is said to be a metaphor, it can be assumed that the reader should know that metaphors are imperfect and should not have more read into them than necessary. On the other hand, the researcher can explain the metaphor and where it fails. The problem, of course, is that the strength of a metaphor is greater than mere explication; likewise, its weaknesses can be assumed but are not so easy to determine. After all, it is a metaphor and not an explicit statement of fact.

Even after a researcher has spent (for example) decades of researching the same environment and taking down notes on everything that was said and done, the fact remains that there will still be lacunae, gaps in understanding and knowledge. The honest researcher will state what these lacunae are and why they exist, wherever possible.

Similarly, in this blog, you will find things that are clearly stories, narratives, fragments of poetry, songs. There are tags, keywords, and conventions of usage that will allow the reader to understand whether something is meant to be taken literally, whether it is some undirected rambling through the corridors of my mind, or whatever. I have feelings in response to what I hear, what I read, what people tell me. Sometimes, I write about those feelings.

It is somewhat disingenuous to assume that I write for publicity. I am quite certain that on average, a handful of people read this, and even fewer are driven to interact (link, comment etc) with this blog (although of late that number seems to have risen). People who go to Google looking for odd snatches of poetry tend to end up here, people who wonder what odd Latin phrases mean end up here. I write here because over the years, the paradigm of handwritten journals has been replaced to a large extent by the paradigm of self-published text. The thing is that the former has extremely small circulation while the latter has potentially unlimited circulation. This can be a dangerous thing.

Particularly dangerous is the fact that I cannot reply to responses which are false but which I do not know about. For example, in January, I wrote this piece on an old Latin saying. I think I was looking at something that happened on CNN, but I cannot remember what it was. But I can imagine someone reading this and saying, "Huh, this must be about XYZ, what an evil thing to write about XYZ."

Then again, there are also the problems of parallelism. I am occasionally exercised by the parallels I see between some of the excesses of the present US administration and some of the behaviours of the former Soviet Union. This is because I see the US as continuing to be a big player in the world where I live, and it can't be good (in principle) for certain things to happen. So people ask me, "Why do you bother what Senator McCain or President Bush say or do? Why do you blog about them?" Well, I do have a distant concern; these men's deeds can affect my life, my work, my finances. I am more concerned with what the US President says about monitoring information than I am about most other people.

But what if some other people think I am referring to them when I refer to a parallel case? I have no good answer for that. Literature shows us that certain symbols, tropes, patterns work themselves out across eras and across lands. Sometimes, it is tempting even to me to draw parallels or leave them to be drawn. It is a temptation to be resisted. Quite often, at a certain point, the parallelism, analogy or metaphor breaks down. Then it is obvious that the relationship is false. Sometimes, it is harder to see if this is true or not.

I think that there is some recourse to truth in the blogosphere. You can see it on any major newsblog. Any user can reply with a comment. Only certain kinds of abusive and/or obscene comments are deleted. The rest are given face time. The writer can respond in particular or in general. The writer can correct his post. This is how a civilised community behaves. Let me put it more bluntly. If in any of my posts I have made factual errors or unjustly maligned specific persons, I will take down that post and issue an apology. In public. On this blog.