[-empyre-] The social dynamics of lists

[Mathieu O'Neil <oneil@homemail.com.au>]

Hello all-

I have appreciated Jim Andrews' suggestions and reflections concerning 
the technical aspects of building lists as well as the responses this 
has generated. The preceding sentence, which I wrote sincerely, 
nonetheless represents a convention of list culture (politely 
acknowledging the contributions of others as a way of easing oneself 
into the discussion). What other conventions are there? More broadly, 
what are lists for? I want to propose the following definition as a 
tentative answer:

-lists are meant to produce a consensual definition of the truth about 
a chosen topic by means of propositions which can be rapidly 
corrected/enriched by other participants (if the use of word "truth" is 
distasteful to some you could say that they serve to explore the 
discursive potentialities centered on / unleashed by / circling around 
certain topics).

-lists also serve to link people of similar interests, thereby building 
a feeling of community based on shared values, interest, and stakes. 
The observation (or not) of certain conventions help to situate 
participants within communities which may overlap with a specific list 
or go beyond their borders to interact with other lists, communities, 
cultural fields. These conventions may be typographical, such as 
writing everything in lower-case letters, or they may be referential, 
such as being familiar with specific concepts, terms, events, jokes, 
etc.

-lists allow individuals to acquire social prestige by collecting the 
interest of appearing to act in a purely disinterested fashion (the 
recent proposition that contributions to lists should count towards 
gaining points in a student / research curriculum contradicts - some 
might say reasonably; other would disagree - this ethic of crafting 
well-thought out points for no apparently visible practical gain).

This definition implies that lists are democratic spaces where everyone 
is more or less equal. This is evidently not the case; anyone who has 
taken part in a real-world "general assembly" knows that even in a 
"free" space, not everyone is similarly equipped when speaking out in 
front of others. Lists alleviate this difficulty as the 
assembly-as-a-whole is never visible. People speak in turn; no-one is 
interrupted or shouted down. But then again, no-one who does not speak 
in a real-world general assembly is ever charged with "lurking".

Moreover, conflicts between agents on the cultural field of lists may 
occur. For example the "tone" of a post may be criticized (it is not 
only what is said that matters but also how it is said: see the current 
discussion on fibreculture where a male participant has been accused of 
"patronizing" females).

It is clear from what has been posted over the last few days in both 
fibreculture and empyre that gender represents a fault line in the list 
vista. A related question is therefore how lists relate to power? Do 
they serve to emancipate users by freely spreading information or to 
reinforce established structures and privileges?

One way of making lists more democratic might be to increase their 
transparency. For example, regularly publishing a listing of members 
would help us to understand who it is we are talking to. Some might 
want to take this further, by indicating (for example) how many 
contributions members have made over a given period. Or on what topic. 
Others might see this as a terrible idea, which would reinforce a 
feeling of competition and destroy the communal spirit of lists. There 
are probably other suggestions to be made, but I'll leave it at that 
for now.

Cheers,

Mathieu