This post is the fourth part in a series and continues from here.
A favorite pastime of both friends and family is career counseling with oso. It always starts with a emptyish complement: “you have such a natural talent for …” and th…

I, Asshole has returned!
http://iasshole.org/

… and she’s still as raw and uppity as ever
http://iasshole.org/oldass/fuckin/index.php

Can I say once again how much I love Bitch, Ph.D.? She has a truly wonderful post, that links to a journalism dust-up that should hit all of us close to home. Her post reflects on two pieces: one a…

First it was journalists vs. bloggers. They gave us their best shot, citing objectivity, credibility and quality as their witness.

http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2005/07/anti-blogging-hiring-practices-in.html

Have any “pro-blogging” universities or colleges created an online “blogging guidelines” document for faculty, students or staff?

Beautifully put, Barb! I think we need to revolutionize the notion of the “professional”. Of course, as danah and Barb have both pointed out, there is a difference between a legitimate concern and censoriousness and/or discrimination.
I can’t help but think of all the great novelists who have been appointed faculty titles at leading universities based on their literary works. Novelists whose personal lives, mental health issues, alcoholism, sexuality and politics are well known. This is tolerated, even celebrated, when it comes from artists. Even some very famous intellectuals like Michel Foucault, for example, whose taste for SM orgies didn’t appear to have gotten in the way of his career. Like those novelists, Foucault’s life was deeply connected to his theoretical objects.

Seems to me that part of the issue here is power and authority. That one’s expression of the personal or the political (one and the same as they are) is only acceptable when it has been authorized by a publisher (whether it’s fiction, poetry, music or theory). Blogs are not an accepted form yet. I would argue that a famous blog or blogger can “get away” with more than an unknown or new blogger even if the nature of their blog posts is similar. Fame authorizes a voice, as does status, wealth or affiliation. To me, the issue is who is authorized to write about their life in their blog. Where does power (as determined through one’s economic, social or professional status/fame) come into play in terms of who is passed over/avoided or celebrated?

It all reminds me of high school. Difference is a signifier of trouble until the popular kids adopt a style, attitude or way of talking. Blogs have “hit the mainstream” but they still have yet to be accepted in the larger process of cultural assimilation. It is my hope that if enough famous or authorized voices use blogs to talk about those subjects that are “off limits” it might, possibly, have a powerful effect on more inclusive discussion of unauthorized subjects in the professional and other spheres sexuality, politics, class, mental health, personal issues, etc. I think this is already happening, however slowly.

I read this post the other day…been fighting a massive chest cold and simply did not have the energy to blog about it. A few days later I revisited the blog to find a long wonderful discussion about it. Simply put the hysteria against blogging and …

In the past 3 years the Chronicle of Higher Education has published 53 stories on blogs and blogging. Of those 53, I have been asked by other scholars for my take on only two of them – first there was the “Scholars Who Blog” article from 2003, and now…

The academy can’t have it both ways — giving lip service to diversity of thought but enforcing homogeneity of role/affect/habit/disposition/demeanor both directly and tacitly. The role of “professional” itself inhibits creative thought. When do we make it to the point where we get to stop hiding the fact that we’re human, and where we can acknowledge that every single one of us has those embarassing moments of emotional outpouring/confusion/despair/etc.? Seems more elegant than pretending they don’t exist. It would be awfully convenient if everybody had a quiet little past where nothing happened, but nobody does, and thank god, otherwise modern thought would be even less interesting. We’re all really messy, and trying to hide that is a dishonesty.