In pre-web-log days, public academic debates were mostly restricted to published academic journals, books, and conferences. Today, any one (including your host) who reads a book, takes a class, or simply hears it from someone else, can join in the debate on his or her web-log and be read by the general on-line public
Case in point: Recent remarks regarding the history of the redaction history of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Journalist Rod Dreher, remarks in an article on the appeal of traditional religion,
" One has a similar liturgical experience at St. Seraphim Orthodox cathedral in Dallas – my church – where every Sunday, amid a panoply of colorful icons and clouds of incense, parishioners pray and sing the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. That rite, which is celebrated here in English, can be traced back to the famed patriarch of Constantinople, who assumed the office in 398."
Huw Raphael then comments on his web-log, Sarx,
"We have no proof at all that JC had anything at all to do with that liturgy, which is simply a Novus Ordo Missae to the earlier codification often attributed to Basil - but again, with no reason. Although mostly stable by the 10th, the form in which we generally recognise the Eastern Liturgy wasn’t finalised until the 12th century."
The issue here is not who is right and who is wrong, but the fact that two non-specialists have made statements regarding the redaction of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom without citing any reliable source of any kind. By doing so, both have established themselves as de facto authorities on the subject, which they are not. The reading public must then make a decision about this vastly complicated subject given these two tiny comments.
The 'blogosphere' is a medium of absolute freedom. Anyone can rightfully say anything they want about anything and publish it on the world-wide-web. This is the power and privilege of blogging which should not be taken away. Given this freedom, certain responsibilities ought to be kept by those who choose to publish on academic subjects.
- If one is posting a comment or analysis of primary source material, specific reference(s) ought to be included to the greatest degree available to the author. Examples might include specific chapter-verse references to works of antiquity such as the Bible, Josephus, Aristotle, etc. If a specific reference is unavailable, then general reference to the book ought to be given. For example, one should not say "The Bible says" or "Josephus says," but "The book of Ephesians states" or "Josephus states in his Antiquities." The more specific a reference is, the more credibility it caries.
- If one is commenting on secondary source material, the name(s) of scholars consulted for this information ought to be given. In the case cited above, Huw Raphael would have done well to mention Robert Taft, Dom Gregory Dix, or who ever he is relying upon for such information. This is not too burdensome of a task requiring only a simple phrase such as "According to the notable liturgiologist Robert Taft..." In Dreher's case, in an article where word-count must be kept within certain bound, it would be sufficient to say "according to some..." or even "some believe..." Such a simple statement removes oneself as the source of such information, thereby removing oneself from being considered as an authority on the subject
4 comments:
Dreher is off the hook because he writes for a newspaper. People who trust what they read in newspapers deserve whatever they get.
Okay, you know what, that counts doubly-so for web-logs.
It's far better to think of a web-log as a conversation than anything else and should be accorded the same level of respect and weight as well as the same standards of evidence. Newspapers should be used when one has run out of bog roll in the outhouse, but modern plumbing has a problem with it, leaving them completely useless.
Yes, you are right. Web-logs are more like a conversation. The difference is, it is a public conversation that anyone can listen to.
But even in a private conversation, one should not pontificate on something one has no expertise in without doing one of two things - citing a source, or stating it as an opinion.
Identifying the abscence of source citing on web-logs as a problem could easily be extended to all forms of mass media: print, television, radio, etc. Web-log posting is undoubtedly more analogous to those formats for the simple fact that it can be produced quickly and with a limited investment. Conversely, books or “scholarly” media take much more effort, largely due to citations standards. Thus, in a strong sense, they exist in their own “realm,” independent of web-logs and it seems the former ought not to be judged outright by the standards of the latter.
In the case of Rod Dreher, you are dealing with a journalist who has taken his “craft” (if that’s what you want to call it) and extended it to web-logging. Dreher’s remark is consistent with the tradition espoused by the Orthodox Church—the institution he is on the way to joining. While scholars may dispute the accuracy of the claim to some extent, there is certainly no shortage of reputable ones who would hold that St. John Chrysostom did indeed have a hand in it, even if the “final form” we have now is not of his design. One could argue this is public “knowledge” to the point where citations are superfluous. Further, Dreher’s point isn’t to be an “authority,” but to discuss his experience with some tidbits for his readers to eat up. It would kill the flow of his entry to insert a large digression about alleged “development” of the liturgy and, of course, the debate surrounding that “development.” As for Huw, he’s just parroting lines that are, again, old hat and mean nothing at this point absent either: (A) A critical engagement with the opposing literature; or (B) A thoroughgoing discussion about why Dreher’s alleged failure to expound upon a subject of limited-to-no value to his readers even needs addressing at all.
Scholars love to get righteous about web-logs, just as they have long loved to get righteous concerning older forms of mass media. My first thought when I see their indignation is, “Big friggin’ deal; go back to your desk and pump out another 30-page journal article less than a dozen people will read.” And if there are distortions in the mass media that seem especially problematic, then people can certainly respond through those same avenues, citing themselves and their tweleve readers (all scholars!) as authorities over-and-against the layman journalist (or web-logger). I suspect that there are bigger fish to fry than Dreher repeating a claim that one can find in a good deal of literature available either for free or at a low cost in most Orthodox parishes.
I also don’t agree that just because a web-logger is posting about something he is deeming himself an authority. Certainly, he believes he is correct in his facts, though it’s always possible he either got his facts wrong or his (unrevealed) sources are wrong. People are either going to be wise enough to sense that or they aren’t. But, given the fact that it doesn’t seem that most people have ever been incredulous enough when it comes to mass media, I really don’t expect a great turnaround for the ole’ blogosphere. The best one can do is make use of the “Comments” section on web-logs, point out where they may have faulty information or have constructed a poor argument and move on. They can always delete the comment I suppose or just ignore you. Such is life.
Also, just for the heck of it, let me be so bold as to say that just because something is scholarly doesn’t make it correct. Scholars in every field love to call errors in their literature “bad scholarship,” even if it followed the standards in place for that field and, heck, even made it through the dreaded peer review process. “Bad scholarship” is still scholarship just like “bad science” (as Marilynne Robinson has pointed out in her Harper’s article on Richard Dawkins [a cite!]) is still science; calling it “bad” and then ignoring it amounts to little more than a self-indictment by the field that it is unwilling to make the necessary changes to align itself a wee bit closer to reality.
Well, I am not asking for any long discussion of the history of scholarship on a particular subject or even a full bibliography. I'm not asking for every web-log to meet APA or Chicago standards. Rather, just a simple "so-and-so says" or "according to some" or even "in my opinion" will suffice. Otherwise, I believe many people are naive enough to take someone on a web-log as an authority of sorts on a subject. An inquirer reading Huw's web-log with no previous knowledge of Orthodoxy and without the know-how to acquire and survey the relevant literature might be inclined to believe him simply because the information is easily available.
We, my friend, are scholars. We have undergraduate and graduate education, and have been trained thereby to be critical thinkers and evaluate statements accordingly. The vast majority of the public does not have those critical thinking skills. Huw is a popular Orthodox blogger who probably receives many hits from people googling for Orthodox information. He has a rather large platform from which he speaks, and because of it, people listen and believe him.
Yes, the comment section is a good corrective (and fulfilling its purpose here), unfortunately, many people are too lazy to sift through all the comments on a post and follow a discussion.
Post a Comment