la_marquise (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
la_marquise) wrote2009-04-21 02:55 pm
la_marquise) wrote2009-04-21 02:55 pm
Let's not have that conversation...
Over the course of the last 25 years or so, I've had the curious fate of doing two things that very many people find fascinating: studying the history, literature and languages of the Celtic- and Gaelic-speaking peoples of the British Isles, and writing. It's unusual and it is, I recognise, privileged. I was very lucky: I went from an ordinary state-funded school (a comprehensive, for British readers) to an elite university without having any family tradition of this, the 'right' class background or inherited money. I studied an obscure subject and won state funding to pursue and even more obscure subset of that subject at PhD level. I even managed (with a lot of effort) to gain jobs in which I was able to continue working in this field, both as researcher and teacher. And then I got a novel published. That's a lot of big things. I'm lucky or odd or both. And I know it. I accept that my academic background and speciality are of interest to others. I am usually fairly happy to talk about it, to listen to others' ideas and to offer bibliography, information and ideas.
The one I keep on having, the one I hate, the one I would dearly love never to have to have again. I no longer remember when I first had it -- I was probably and undergraduate student. Most recently, I had it at Eastercon. It goes something like this. Person -- usually someone new to me -- discovers that I'm a Celticist and expresses their interest in the subject. We get talking: so far, so good. And then it happens. We get into one of the sensitive zones -- mythology, women, nationalism, pre-Christian religion -- and they express fervent belief in pagan survivals to modern times/the existence of Arthur or similar figure/feisty equal 'Celtic' women/the utter and single-minded evilness of Christianity in its effect/or similar. And I say something on the lines of, 'well, it's not that simple' and go on to explain why and give examples. At this point, things can go one of two ways. They may say, 'Oh, I didn't know that. What about X?' and we have an interesting and pleasant discussion. Or they say something like 'No, that's wrong. I know it's wrong because I've read books by experts/my spirit guide told me/you're not a real Celt and can't know/my coven has traditions leading back to the Bronze Age/I'm a scientist and I'm cleverer than you.'1 And we go on to have that conversation, in which I am lectured about my failings, my ignorance, my stupidity, the invalidity of my 25+ years of study and so on and on. Because the person I'm talking to does not, in fact, what to discuss the subject at hand. They want to hang on to their beliefs and they find me in some way threatening.
I understand why, I really do. I hate to have my favourite ideas threatened, too. But at the same I am tired of dealing with the situation, I'm tired of the hostility and, yes, I'm somewhat tired of the disrespect. Because, you know, I've read the 'famous' experts plus a whole lot of others who are more recent and more rigorous, I've read the source materials (in the original), I've thought about the arguments and problems and issues and debated with them with my academic peers, and I know what I'm talking about. I realise that this sounds arrogant: it probably is arrogant. That's one of the reasons I hate having that conversation. It pushes my buttons as well as, frankly, wasting everyone's time. It serves no purpose. It's boring. And I don't handle it very well. In an ideal world, I'd never have it again.
It would be lovely to arrange that. My normal strategy is to walk away as fast as possible, though that can't always be arranged. I need to find a way to say this without being arrogant. A lot of me wants to say this in my public space -- on my website -- because I really really don't want any more reprises of that conversation ever again. I know that's futile. I am certain sure that a woman who had that conversation for the umpty-umpth time at Eastercon and did not handle it well, and stamped her metaphorical feet and grumped about it is neither a good public face for academics nor worthy of any other things that might have happened at said convention.
I need a better strategy -- any suggestions welcome.
1 Yes, someone really did once use that line with me.
The one I keep on having, the one I hate, the one I would dearly love never to have to have again. I no longer remember when I first had it -- I was probably and undergraduate student. Most recently, I had it at Eastercon. It goes something like this. Person -- usually someone new to me -- discovers that I'm a Celticist and expresses their interest in the subject. We get talking: so far, so good. And then it happens. We get into one of the sensitive zones -- mythology, women, nationalism, pre-Christian religion -- and they express fervent belief in pagan survivals to modern times/the existence of Arthur or similar figure/feisty equal 'Celtic' women/the utter and single-minded evilness of Christianity in its effect/or similar. And I say something on the lines of, 'well, it's not that simple' and go on to explain why and give examples. At this point, things can go one of two ways. They may say, 'Oh, I didn't know that. What about X?' and we have an interesting and pleasant discussion. Or they say something like 'No, that's wrong. I know it's wrong because I've read books by experts/my spirit guide told me/you're not a real Celt and can't know/my coven has traditions leading back to the Bronze Age/I'm a scientist and I'm cleverer than you.'1 And we go on to have that conversation, in which I am lectured about my failings, my ignorance, my stupidity, the invalidity of my 25+ years of study and so on and on. Because the person I'm talking to does not, in fact, what to discuss the subject at hand. They want to hang on to their beliefs and they find me in some way threatening.
I understand why, I really do. I hate to have my favourite ideas threatened, too. But at the same I am tired of dealing with the situation, I'm tired of the hostility and, yes, I'm somewhat tired of the disrespect. Because, you know, I've read the 'famous' experts plus a whole lot of others who are more recent and more rigorous, I've read the source materials (in the original), I've thought about the arguments and problems and issues and debated with them with my academic peers, and I know what I'm talking about. I realise that this sounds arrogant: it probably is arrogant. That's one of the reasons I hate having that conversation. It pushes my buttons as well as, frankly, wasting everyone's time. It serves no purpose. It's boring. And I don't handle it very well. In an ideal world, I'd never have it again.
It would be lovely to arrange that. My normal strategy is to walk away as fast as possible, though that can't always be arranged. I need to find a way to say this without being arrogant. A lot of me wants to say this in my public space -- on my website -- because I really really don't want any more reprises of that conversation ever again. I know that's futile. I am certain sure that a woman who had that conversation for the umpty-umpth time at Eastercon and did not handle it well, and stamped her metaphorical feet and grumped about it is neither a good public face for academics nor worthy of any other things that might have happened at said convention.
I need a better strategy -- any suggestions welcome.
1 Yes, someone really did once use that line with me.
no subject
Heh, this happened in the lj-"envrionment" community fairly recently (I tried to look up the thread but I think the post has been removed).
Someone posted a link to some you tube videos, saying this was interesting stuff about how maybe man-made climate change wasn't real, and maybe part of a left-wing plot to regulate every aspect of our lives.
Derision ensued. They responded by saying the derision had convinced them the videos were true. Someone responded by saying they were a couple of months away from their PhD in climatology and they had done hordes of original research and various other things about what they had learned.
The original poster? Said the grad student obviously hadn't watched the videos or done any non-biased research and was just taking Al Gore's word for things.
Such is the state of humanity.
no subject
Have you noticed how people like that always want you to watch their video, but are never willing to read things you recommend to them? After all, real science takes effort and rather more time than an hour-long documentary.
And they really don't understand the point of research. Proper research doesn't have a bias (I know it's possibly to introduce one, but at least decent studies work to reduce bias as much as possible).
no subject
& yes to the "never willing to read"; I pointed out to them that much of the derision wasn't just because they were questioning climate change, but tying it in to "evil left wing plot to control every aspect of people's lives", and asking if any of the people in the vid were upset about efforts to actually regulate people's private lives. They ignored this, too, and complained I gave no sources because I could remember only a couple off the top of my head, and when I looked up several hundred for them (okay, I only put a few on the post, and linked to lists of several hundred more), they said 'their' experts in the youtube video "disproved" 'my' experts.
Dunno who most of their experts were, but I think one was this guy I heard on a radio program once "debunking" global warming, who kept wuoting various prestigious organizations as having made various findings. My wife went to his website, where he made the same claim, complete w/links. She followed some of the links. They tended to be along the lines of "Scientists at the Grade A Bestest Climatology Institute say "The amount of Ice in Antarctica is increasing" " . Then you go to the link, and it says "There is no truth to the claims that the amount of ice in Antarctica is increasing." So he took real quotes out of context and made it appear as if they were saying the opposite of what they said. Tis amazing he hasn't been sued blind.
But I'm going way off topic here, except, well, I suspect a lot of the people arguing w/Kari have similarly excellent sources and skill w/logic.