On the Lack of Engagement of Invited Book Club Contributors
Some good comments in the book club discussion this week on Andrew Bacevich's book, both by invited contributors and cafe denizens.
It could be so much better if Michael Klare, Bacevich, and others would engage with us riffraff. Evidently they can't be bothered.
I've been at this place for awhile and a couple of years ago some of the denizens were, I thought, obnoxious to many of the invited contributors. It left me at least somewhat sympathetic towards those who opted not to engage. Anne-Marie Slaughter, I recall, took a heap of abuse, yet to her great credit she did engage frequently and civilly, with a degree of equanimity and class I suspect few of us in her position likely would have been able to muster. Ikenberry rarely if ever replied to comments or questions. Daalder--infrequently--and he treated very poorly by some. Michael Lind would sometimes give at least as good as he got where he took umbrage. Lindsay I thought could at times be just as obnoxious as some of the disrespectful denizens. Steve Clemons was, and is, a gentleman through and through, a class act.
I don't see any nastiness coming from denizens in book club threads this week, nor lately in book club discussions. So I am considerably less sympathetic than I once was to the invited contributors who do not engage, which frankly is most of them.
I get the sense that the folks invited to contribute think of the folks who frequent this site as spectators at a sporting event--permitted to watch and listen in on the "real" action, but not as citizens who might possibly have a worthwhile thought or question worth their time.
Maybe some time back we cafe denizens got a collective rep for too much bad behavior that at one time may have been justified but no longer seems to be, but that we're having trouble shaking.
we cafe denizens
Isn't this a bit self involved? Personally, I give Josh props for providing bandwidth that attracts movers and shakers.
Because they post, they are likely to (at least) read the comments (the first 20, anyway), whether or not they interact.
Thus, you have a chance to nudge a shaker. Ordinarily, you'd have to travel to rural Pennsylvania to do that.
February 5, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
jollroger, thank you for your reply.
Is this a self-involved post on my part?
Well, I freely admit to feeling more satisfied when I receive a response to a question I have asked someone than when I don't. (I try not to ask obnoxious questions.) But I'm not primarily referring to my questions and comments.
I actually think some of the questions and comments fellow denizens contribute at this site are thoughtful and interesting. If they elicited some sort of reply from the person leading the thread, I see this as likely to enhance the discussion that goes on among and between invited contributors.
I don't know why you believe that most invited contributors read the first 20 comments or so. That of course could be the case. I can't prove otherwise. But I also don't have any reason to believe that, absent the contributor responding in some way. In any case, whether the contributor reads over the first 20 comments or not there is no benefit to anyone hoping for a more participatory and hopefully richer discussion if they don't reply.
I often note in the comments of foreign policy experts and commentators a lament that the lack of public engagement in foreign affairs in our country is deplorable, and ultimately an impediment to the effective conduct of US foreign policy. Here at the cafe, dare I say it (and again I'm glad to exclude myself from this observation so as not to muddy the point), are among the more interested, better informed, and more active of our fellow citizens when it comes to foreign affairs.
And usually they can't get the time of day from people whose books they buy, whose articles and op-eds they read, and whose ideas they listen to with interest and respect. Obama said he wants American citizens to step up, to take more responsibility for participating. He's right. But it's hard to do that when the people at the next few rungs up the ladder can't, apparently, be bothered, to engage. It feels like a one-way street to me. Active citizenship can't be that, in the end.
I'm not suggesting every comment deserves a response.
February 5, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
on my part
No, I didn't mean you personally; I meant it is self-reflective to have a mental category of us as a community(ie, "denizens") with norms of interaction, and a system of meta communication in which the act of commenting and thereby acknowledging becomes important in itself, separate from the content.
February 5, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the clarification.
February 5, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
clarification
Thanks for the characterization--as often as not I just make myself less understood...
February 5, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink