The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by eukabeuk:

Martin Schafer:

This is an interesting point, but, getting back to conservatism, the aspects of small-town life you mention are part of why I am still uncomfortable with small-c conservatism, that is, conservatism on my definition (not Agre's).

"Traditional" small-town life worked pretty well for a lot of people, but there were ALWAYS people for whom it didn't work at all. Gay people, women stuck in abusive marriages, misfits of all stripes. And for centuries some of those people have sought the relative anonymity of the city, or the solitude of living alone. Most people, maybe, loved being a "regular" in the place where they happened to be; some people hated it; some people left. When Nicholas Lehmann wrote "Kicking in Groups" in response to Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone," I imagined not soccer (his actual topic) but a group of people standing around kicking someone on the ground - the bad side of communitarianism.

Obviously, the mobility and hyperindividualism of (much of) modern American culture are unusual, and create their own problems -- perhaps worse ones, on balance. But I don't think it's the case that "back in the old days" everyone was comfortable with the fit between individual and community. I like being a regular too in certain contexts (but perhaps I like it best in its contrast with other aspects of my life).

This wasn't your whole point, of course...

Back in 1994 or 5 when I first had a quirky website that encouraged participation (it was a collaborative writing site, and used my first name--female), I had some entries that talked about the various things the authors wanted to do to my naked corpse. So that made me a little leery of using my real identity in "unofficial" contexts.

Truth be told, I also have students, and would rather not have them come upon my blog blatherings, just as I don't really want to run into them in the gym.

We should ALL be taking Chinese lessons.

Some of us use pseudonyms because our real names indicate our gender, which, on the internet, is a potential source of harassment and trivialization.

But aside from that, isn't part of the point of this medium the fluidity of identity? If this makes one uncomfortable, one might set up a comment system that requires registration (and thereby impose some measure of consistency, if not necessarily accuracy).

Sorry for all the distracting "i.e."s in that post. Didn't proofread...

Following up on the posts about Phil Agre's article, I must admit I haven't read it all the way through, but I have the feeling what he's talking about is actually not modern conservatism at all, but classical (Burkean) conservatism. As Patrick said, the word is often used to mean things that are a lot more benign, and I think there's some value to that usage -- i.e., some value to rescuing the term for an ethos which, if I don't necessarily subscribe to it entirely, could use some stronger voices in our political sphere. I.e. conservation as caution and thoughtfulness, resistance to change for its own sake (which often might mean resistance to certain of the effects of unfettered capitalism - i.e. hyperindividualism and consumerism), conservation of natural resources -- etc. There are plenty of people who identify as Republicans and hold some or all of these values, who it would be nice to see splintered off from what is now a truly radical party. At this point it might actually be conservative (small c) to have respect for democratic values...

No need to come to Illinois to vote for Obama - I think we've got that taken care of! (Not that we're complacent - believe me, I'm driving my elderly south-side-of-Chicago neighbors to the polls again in November...) Just stick around enough years to vote for him for president.

Comment statistics for eukabeuk on the Electrolite blog

Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.