As a member, most of the time, of SCREEN-L's lurking "silent majority," I
thought I'd air some concerns before, perhaps, removing my address from
the list. I sensed in Jeremy's query about moderating the list some of the
discomfort I've felt with the tone and content of what is perhaps now the
majority of SCREEN-L's postings. I can't imagine that I'm alone in
experiencing a certain regular, discouraging feeling every time I sign on
to my e-mail, knowing that I will have to sort through so many messages
whose tone is so decidedly uncollegial. A discussion of "pc," for example,
might actually be something of real use and interest to SCREEN-L's
subscribers. But the tenor of most of the postings regarding the topic has
often been uncivil -- a real shame, since a sustained, lively, and
critical debate that would seek to test some of the perceived orthodoxies
of contemporary academic film studies would be a wonderful thing.
Obviously, those of us with a "serious" interest in the issue are not
feeling well served by the current postings. We have, of course, mostly
ourselves to blame, for not taking the time to offer our thoughts. But
then, those few valiant efforts at reasoned debate that do get posted tend
to be made the immediate targets of ridicule and unargued "good-clean-fun"
sniping.
It's really an interesting issue, and one which will become more and more
of a problem as bulletin boards grow in size and usefulness. Is my
displeasure at much of SCREEN-L's tone and content simply an elitist urge
to remove from my field of vision less "professionalized" ways of
interacting? Conversly, while I support the "democratic ideal" of the board,
why should I be subjected to a daily onslaught of sniping and
opinionating? But then, is it really my job to try to police other people's
speech? Why can't I just ignore all the uncivil jibing and speak to my chosen
peers without worrying about the non-essential messages that may pop up as
a result? Certainly, I have identified many of the people whose messages
tend most regularly to offend me, and have on occassion simply deleted
their postings before bothering to read them -- a practice which my
"democratic" side still rebels against, however, and I'd be suspicious of
assigning the "management" (e.g., the censorship) of the list to someone
-- even someone as genial and tireless as Jeremy.
(And my unease regarding the "low" level of much of what appears on
SCREEN-L raises other intriguing issues about the academic cultural
"sphere" as it negotiates an electronic environment while attempting to
deal with issues of "public" or "political" import; the mixing of voices
from the ranks of the professoriat with those, I assume, of the student
body, is just one of the features of the list that potentially
(and perhaps happily) destabilizes the "authority" of academic discourse
within its own limited political sphere. But at the same time, I don't
wholly buy into the argument that "collegial" and "civil" are merely code
words signifying the hegemony of a professionalized class of certified
speakers. And is there a way that those of us on the list interested in
maintaining a collegial tone can effectively "organize" such an endeavor
without, in fact, simply resorting to elitist, self-defeating protocols of
censorship?)
 
 
 
So I have no real answers to these contradictory urges and questions,
simply a hunch that others are feeling the push and pull of them too. As
for now, my biggest pleasure in remaining on the list is the least
"essential" or compellingly intellectual one for me -- I very much enjoy
reading the requests for help on various film fronts, many of them dealing
with topics and concerns of little particular interest to me, and seeing
the many times remarkably informed and generous responses that emerge. The
sense of community and appreciation for the depth and range of human
resources available via the list is a real pleasure.
 
Is it worth sorting through the junk mail to stay in touch with the
community at large? Or will the junk mail begin to so dominate the board
that the community as a whole will begin to percieve itself to be
something less than it is or could be?
 
James Schamus