You call it irritating; I call it useful
Re: Here's why Andries is irritating -- Jim Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Neville B ®

02/22/2005, 06:03:46
Author Profile
Edit
Alert Moderators

There's nothing wrong with scholarship; it is a worthwhile activity. Andries is 100% right not to accept our claims at face value--that's just common garden objectivity. It's obvious that exes have a big emotional investment in our claims. (Look, I know we're telling the truth, but why should an outsider?) Personally, I share his suspicion of black and white thinking--the situation is always more complex than it is presented, but the conclusion achieved through careful weighing of evidence is the one that lasts.

What I see here is the clash between the viewpoint of a committed activist, and that of an academic--two spheres that operate by different criteria. Scholarship must necessarily develop in slow--even hesitant--increments. If you want to become an academic scholar of NRMs then go ahead--find the objective data, present the counter-arguments, show how the field is founded on erroneous thinking--I'll cheer you on. If you're not prepared to do this you have no business criticising.

We're used to criticism from premies, but Andries gives us a insight into how exes may be viewed by complete outsiders--those who can't begin to share our breadth of experience but have the difficult task of summarising it sufficiently to achieve historical conclusions. These may be the people who will judge us all--exes and premies--in the end. What we consider unassailable evidence Andries sees as less certain. That's useful. Actually, it's invaluable. I bet if the Levellers or the Luddites saw what historians write about them they'd get indignant too. Getting petulant because Andries doesn't swallow our testimonies whole--now, that is a waste of time.

Neville B







Previous Recommend Current page Next

Replies to this message