the tone of public discourse

on the cultural studies email list there's recently been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about the 'proper' way for cultural studies people to engage in public discussion.
one camp tend to use the phrase 'we need to take ourselves less seriously if we want to be taken seriously by other people/the general public' to justify a whole range of 'language' and 'talk', most of which is casual, sarcastic, keen on 'wit' (i use the term advisedly) and fond of dropping 'groovy young people' words into their talk.
i also (somewhat privately) think of them as the 'black turtleneck' crowd - people who wear a lot of black (especially black rimmed glasses), the odd silver ornament, and read magazines like wallpaper.

then there's another camp who oppose the casual talk and personal insult style and instead call for 'serious' debate. they tend to like impenetrable prose and heavy theory.

i think there's also one other camp (which i kind of think i belong to), which is peopled by people who say things like this (elspeth probyn's response to the list):

Dear all,

I agree with Tony's and Jonathon's remarks about the tone of debate, if only because sinking to the low level of commentators encourages a spitefulness that is getting out of hand. For instance, below is an email I've just received. I get a few in this tone and it does make me depair. But going after the sex lives - or not - of Bolt etc only results in a tit for tat, except they have greater power. The stakes are very high right now, and we (and i have no probs with using "we" in this case) had better realise it! For instance, after Bolt decimated me I received emails about how great it was that he'd used "rhizomatic" in the Sun Herald. Now I know that the intentions were good, but the import of his attack (which tried to discredit my research on the basis of my sexuality) went far beyond me. We have to realise that the politics of humiliation is rife at the moment, including amongst Ministers (Costello gets one up on Nelson when he can query ARC funding with some nutty title). If we can, we have to try to shift debate away from these terms. We need to use smarts and humour, but not play into the game of humiliation, especially on the grounds of sex. and if anyone has a smart and funny retort to the writer of the email below, pls let me know!

best,
Elspeth.

"Firstly I am absolutely amazed and astounded that you are a professor you sound like such a retarded knuckle dragging misandric feminist Neanderthal, however in the present fanatical femi-nazi climate of politically correctoid undemocratic institution's of (supposed) higher learning -- tenured academic positions are handed out to any Andrea Dworkin nutcase wannabes or surrendered subservient submissive pro-feminist "mangina's" such as Hugo Schwyzer and the erroneous insidious vacuous ideologically defunct rabid feminist infestation continues to spread.

Your self indulgent sporadic moronic feminist ideological driven illogical rambling's are so typical of feminist-nazi's such as your pathetic self, that your misandry (hatred of men) become's so very transparent in your incoherent propaganda devoid of empirical evidence and or an opposing view, as always, feminism cannot contend with logical debate -- find yourself a short cut to hell, Satan is waiting for you! Andrea Dworkin, and a myriad of misandrist's and mangina's will keep your vile self company eternally."

i like elspeth's approach because it at once encourages us to respond 'with humour' (which makes me think of a joke a hardcore feminist academic made at the pub once about feminists not having senses of humour. no one can make a joke about feminism like a feminist), but also to retain some sense of 'academicness'.
i like to think that when i have my academic hat on, i am capable of using both humour and a lighter, penetrable tone when necessary, but without abandoning academic 'language'. i do think that many of the things we discuss in cultural studies demand more complex language - because they're complex issues. but i also remind myself that there's no point theorising in space - if we want to be relevent and useful and to really contribute to society and culture - we need to accessible. that's why i think teaching's important. and why i think it's important to write clearly and as simply as possibly when we do academic stuff.
i don't mean that we should talk slang or too informally (or with personal slander, etc) in our academic talk, but i do think we need to be accessible. and humour is nice.

elspeth's email to the list really made me think about the whole 'power' of talking crude/casual/witty/cool. i had a female supervisor for my honours who commented on the overly casual tone of one of my chapters: "yes, it's nice to write like this, but while people like graham turner can get away with it, we can't". it made me really think about how writing with a casual tone is actually a marker of cultural or social power. graham can write like that because he's earned his stripes. i couldn't because i had yet to prove my mettle.

in other words, you may well choose to write like one of the kids, but you must be able to substantiate your points with sound knowledge and reasoning. and you must also be aware of when and where it is appropriate to use certain tones.

teaching at uni, i have discovered that i must not only speak and explain things clearly and accessibly, but also to avoid becoming too familiar - i want to maintain my status as 'Tutor' because someone has to manage and facilitate the discussion. so you need a 'chairperson' with status all respect.

working on dance stuff, i find the opposite is true.

large group work, you must certainly maintain your higher status, if only for crowd control purposes.

i tend to swear a lot in person. but i know better than to swear unecessarily in more formal situations. just like in lindy hop: don't do your basic in a particular way because it's a default, a habit. make it a choice.

i also have problems with the overly crude approach to academic 'talk' because it often encourages newer academics (pgrads especially) to think that it's 'ok' to use this sort of language from word go. it especially urks me when said academics have failed to develop sufficient knowledge/information about the topic under discussion, or simply replace logical discussion, rational talk and mutually respectful discourse for witty one liners or throw away references to pop culture.

i have also had some profoundly frustrating experiences with male cultural studies academics who've adopted the casuall sexualised tone in conversation or tutorials, to the effect that i've thought "hang about, did i just get some sexual harassment?". and if it makes me think that, it must have been severe, as i don't generally attract sexual harassment.
as an exec on the uq pgrad committe in the english dept i also once had some female pgrads approach me about the behaviour of one of the male staff who used the same sorts of tactics (sexualised talk, 'comraderie', etc) to effectively bully them into shutting up, and in one woman's case, leaving the program completely. i've had undergrads comment on a male pgrad's sexualised talk in similar terms: he thought he was being 'cool' or sexy or whatever. they knew he was crossing the line into inappropriate behaviour.
effectively, bullying.

language is power, and elspeth probyn's comment reminded me of this.
it's doubly frustrating when you think of cultural studies history as rooted in marxism. but maybe not feminist marxism?

ben did make a comment on the cssa list to the effect (and i paraphrase from memory as i've deleted the email) that it is never ok to stoop to personal attacks, slander and speculation about an opponent's sexual proclivities in debate.
as a few others commented: sometimes it is ok. personal attacks and speculation have their place.

the issue is whether or not they have a place in public discourse. and if in public discourse, which types of public discourse?

i do feel that if i am posting on the cssa list (which i haven't) or commenting in an otherwise 'official' academic space (say, asking a question in a larger group setting at a conference, etc), i should think about what i say and adopt an appropriate tone. i wouldn't use the above tactics in those settings. but i would on my blog, in conversation, at the pub, in an argument on the street, etc etc.

i have also in the past used this approach to retaliate to some unsavoury sexual harassement - a little public ridicule does wonders for shutting up dickhead middle aged academics who think it's ok to do the inappropriate sexualised talk at department social events. in that situation i don't dodge the issue, i speak up and challenge them on their behaviour. i can do that then and there because it is a social occasion, and because i am sure that their behaviour is inappropriate. it also helps if i have nothing to lose professionally.
actually, that little story is one of mine from unimelb. ah, happy times.
i ask you: what sort of department allows it's internal culture to reach that point? what sort of leadership is going on there?

man, i'm getting myself angry again. and we all know what happens then.

but, to sum up, at the end of the day, it's about demonstrating some degree of social nous. sure, we may be academics, but goddess help us in our relationships with other human beings if we can't judge the appropriate behaviour for particular social situations.

i have one word: dickheads.