[Reader-list] a thought

[Aarti Sethi]

Dear Nazneen,

I am not going to get into an interminable exchange on this, an exchange
which you have demonstrated unlimited energy for in your interactions with
other list members, but I confess, I have not the capacity for. So very
quick responses to the substantial points you raise because I think they
pertain both to what you see as a modus operandi for getting action -
"making a lot of noise"- as well as the premises on which a discussion of
list protocols can ensue.


>
> Could I suggest that what appears to you as an 'institutional obsession'/
> 'irritating'/ 'intellectually lazy'  argument may in fact be an 'appeal to
> authority'. In a virtual world where this list floats, with nameless places
> and place less names, the only clear and distinct sign which appears to me
> was a sarai.net address. This is a sarai.reader list and I think it is
> common sense to address my raves and rants concerning the list to the most
> visible  and perhaps the most stable of all landmarks. I agree with you
> completely that sarai's institutional stake is limited to providing a
> context
>

I am unconvinced by 'appeals to authority' because I think you deliberately
misunderstand what the nature of authority is in this case. Sarai has
explicitly in this and other instances made clear that its jurisdiction as
far as the reader-list goes extends to providing a context, and an
administrative function. There is no ambiguity in this position at all. In
doing so Sarai also makes clear that the responsibility for its health and
functioning thereby devolves onto all who participate in it. If we all
together cannot devise forms of communication and conversation which
contribute to its health then the list will die. And this is not the first
time that an online platform dies for such reasons. If such a situation were
to come to pass we would only hold our selves responsible, not Sarai because
it failed to clean up when the list community made a pig's ear of it. I do
not see how nameless places and placeless names are an argument for
intervention, or an argument for Sarai's intervention in the form of
regulation. It is too easy to posit absolute anarchy on the one hand, solved
through legitimate institutional intervention.

Does this mean I am opposed to regulation? Not at all. I think if all of us
have a conversation regarding the protocols that we think collectively would
make the list a better forum for discussion, by all means these protocols
must be put in place. You will notice that I have responded positively to
vivek's suggestion, with a qualifier, which I am submitting to the list
community at large. I am opposed to the way in which you say "I think all of
us who are non-sarai expect an intervention from Sarai". All of us do not.
Or at least we are not agreed on what the terms of this intervention are to
be. I am also taking exception to the way in which you hail Vivek's response
as a gesture of greater value simply because he has a sarai.net address.

Autonomous communities come with a great deal of responsibility and its up
to all of us to take this seriously. The only reason I am belabouring this
point is because I have read mail after mail from you where you posit Sarai
as a judgment-delivering body when in fact neither does Sarai view itself in
this fashion, nor in fact do a majority of list members. And you explicitly
foist onto people who happen to work at Sarai a greater articulative power
when in fact they are explicity disavowing it, as you did in your
interaction with Iram.


> And I laud this, 'gesture' but ultimately when push comes to shove, as in
> Radhikarajen's instance, it was left only to the discretion of list admin to
> take a call.
>

I'd like to submit that what you define as a 'gesture' and this is not the
first time you have done so, is not a 'gesture' alone. It is in fact the
structure of this web community. Therefore there is no moral highground that
Sarai is seeking to occupy (which you have also alleged) when Shuddha and
Iram make clear what the terms of their engagement are. They are simply
trying to explain to you, yet again, the basic architecture of list
functioning. Regarding the discretion of the list admin. Yes, it was finally
left to the list admin. But I can say with confidence that the occasions on
which this has occurred can be counted on the fingers of one hand. This, for
a list which has been in existence now for almost 7 years, where 'turbulent'
would be a mild adjective to describe conversation, is, I can assure you,
extraordinary. I would actually read this in exactly the reverse way in
which you choose to. That it in fact testifies to the fact that we can
course correct, and have done so, without constantly asking Sarai to
intervene, and actually, and this is what irritates me, making intervention
a moral imperative on Sarai's part.


I don't see any reason why I should not direct my rants for punitive action
> to a sarai.net address. It makes more sense to one to write to the
> non-interventionist Sponsor of this list than to address them to a
> fsrnkashmir at gmail.com or aashu.gupta20 at gmail.com not because by directing
> to these mail address I would be diluting the issue but because I guess by
> deliberately dragging sarai's name I hoped to provoke perhaps a lot more
> people,
>
> Which was the intended objective.  I have always believe that one should
> make a lot of noise if one is uncomfortable with the way in which things are
> being done.
>

Certainly one must make a lot of noise. But who must this noise be directed
to? On this we disgaree fundamentally. You think it is more effective to
lobby "sponsors", as you so charmingly put it. I think we should address
everyone who is part of this community. If the structure of the reader-list
were other than what it was, then yes, demands for "punitive action" should
be directed solely at Sarai. But that is not how the reader-list functions
or has functioned. So there can be no demands for "punitive action" at all.
There can be discussions amongst all of us regarding how to regulate
conversation in a manner that we all find productive. Unfortunately you see
this as a rhetorical gesture on Sarai's part. I am trying to tell you it is
not.




> I consider this strategy far more engaging and an exercise in thinking
> together than say, for instance, without sounding rude to you, writing
> intellectually engaging stuff like- 'Enough. Just. Shut. Up. Be. Quiet. Do
> Not Speak. You embarrass and insult yourself.' But of course this was
> written with respect to a specific context but still, the above remark
> pertains very much to a broad discussion concerning how we engage on the
> reader list.
>

I actually do not see this remark as being any less intellectually engaging
than some of your own writing. But lets leave that aside. That remark was
made as a specific response to a person who has used language in a manner
that is beyond any schema of justification. All I asked was that they desist
from speech, followed by a friendly reminder of the fact that he was
insulting and embarrasing himself. I agree its not elevated conversation, I
also agree that it is in no way a model for list interaction, and I would be
the first to admit that one should desist from this form of speech. But
given the kind of speech and the long dure of this speech that it was
directed against, I am loathe to apologise for this stray remark.

I hope I have made myself abundantly clear. And keeping recent calls for
economy of articulation in mind, I will not be engaging with you on this
anymore.

Warm regards
Aarti




>
> Warm regards
>
> Nazo
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I think this is a good idea but I am not entirely convinced. I fear it
>> might lead to a situation in which conversations might dry up quite fast
>> because often an exchange consists of people responding quite quickly to
>> positions. Are we sure we want to impose a moratorium this strict wherein it
>> becomes impossible for me to engage with six mails I might wish to, or
>> respond to a thread where several people are coming in at the same time. I
>> also recognise though that in a moment  marked by the excess of too many
>> words some economy of articulation would be very welcome. So can this be
>> modified to say that I am allowed one response to an ongoing thread only,
>> and one new thread which I initiate?
>>
>> best
>> Aarti
>>
>> P.S And Nazneen, without sounding rude I am beginning to tire of your
>> institutional obsession with Sarai. It has been made clear over and over
>> again that Sarai's institutional stake in this list is limited to providing
>> the context. This is as it should be. I used to work at Sarai, I do not
>> anymore. My relationship with the list extends from before I joined Sarai,
>> continued while I worked there, and sustains now that I do not. I see no
>> reason why my stake in this list is reduced or altered because Sarai no
>> loner happens to be my employer. Those at Sarai are not judges on high who
>> will determine how everyone else who has spent as much time contributing to
>> the discussions and general health of this list over now 7 years, nor should
>> we force them to become that. I think in different ways those who work at
>> Sarai and are members of the reader list have expressed tehir unwillingness
>> and discomfort with this regulatory role that you insist on attributing to
>> them. So please lets think together about this. I find this constant
>> petitioning to Sarai very irritating and I also think its intellectually
>> lazy.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Nazneen Anand Shamsi <
>> nazoshmasi at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Vivek,
>>>
>>> Thank you for a thought provoking post. Undoubtedly yours is perhaps the
>>> first instance, when we have someone from sarai.net seriously taking up
>>> a
>>> initiative to put in place modalities of engagement, in his personal
>>> capacity.
>>>
>>> I unhesitatingly endorse your move.
>>>
>>> Further on, I suggest that the list admin set a deadline of a week's time
>>> for any discussion on this issue. After  the completion of such a
>>> deadline,
>>> this rule must come into pace. Despite Shuddha's insistence, in this
>>> morning's riposte to Radhakrishnan's mail, I think, insofar as all of us
>>> here who are non sarai.net, we expect some sort of initiative from
>>> sarai. I
>>> am certainly not in a position, none whatsoever, to dictate the terms of
>>> engagement but nevertheless, I feel your suggestion needs to be taken up
>>> seriously by all concerned.
>>>
>>> May I suggest that responses that belong to different threads be
>>> restricted
>>> to one post, instead of just one post a day. Regarding content, may I
>>> also
>>> suggest that a provocation and its response must not include any ad
>>> homenium
>>> remarks. A similar warning must be issued against any such post, followed
>>> by
>>> dismissal.
>>>
>>> I would urge everyone one who is a regular sarai express junkie to
>>> respond
>>> to Vivek's timely intervention.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Nazo
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Shahnawaz Khan <fsrnkashmir at gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sounds Good. Amazing if people would be able to hold their trash with
>>> them
>>> > for the night.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Aashish Gupta <
>>> aashu.gupta20 at gmail.com
>>> > >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Completely agreed. Very innovative.
>>> > > Aashish
>>> > >  _________________________________________
>>> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>>> > > Critiques & Collaborations
>>> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>>> > > subscribe in the subject header.
>>> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>>> > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>> > >
>>> > _________________________________________
>>> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>>> > Critiques & Collaborations
>>> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>>> > subscribe in the subject header.
>>> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>>> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>> >
>>> _________________________________________
>>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>>> Critiques & Collaborations
>>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>>> subscribe in the subject header.
>>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>>> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>>
>>
>>
>