[Air-l] Reification was Definitions

[Dr. Steve Eskow]

All,

This newcomer to Air-l confesses to bewilderment as to the agenda of this
discussion, and its motives.

And baffled by such theses as these:

<< I did say that there are terms that have been reified, turned into tropes
and subsequently cited. I gave an example of "cyberspace". I offer
additional an additional term such as "virtual group or community" which
carries the implication of "almost like" a group or community. In context
they are presented as if they have been explicitly defined. No proof of
"virtuality" has been offered and yet it has been cited as support for other
assertions. >>

It seems to me that the meaning(s) of the locution "virtual community" is as
clear and as coherent as older terms, e.g. "science." Terms like "science"
and "virtual community" are not "explicitly defined" in a way that lends
them precision, and prevents arguments about their methods and boundaries:
Latour's science is not Kuhn's is not Feyerbend's. 

For example: is there really a "scientific method" that is clearly defined
and universally accepted?

"Virtual community" is clear enough, it seems to me, at least as clear and
as fuzzy as the term "community" itself, which has been "defined" hundreds
of times without ending the many different ways in which the term is used.
And I imagine most of us would agree that a "virtual community" is made up
of people who are not physically co-present.

I find the statement that "virtuality" has not been "proved" impossible to
grasp. The central thesis of "virtual community" is that new communication
technologies make it possible for people who do not share the same space and
time, who are not seen or heard "in the flesh," to engage in the kinds of
interactions that characterize the communities of proximity. What other
proof of "virtuality," and its ability to create commonality and communal
conversation do we need beyond the evidence of this discussion?

There is something going on here which is mystifying. To me, at least.

Steve Eskow
   

-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tilden
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:31 PM
To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org; brehak1 at swarthmore.edu
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Reification was Definitions

Bob,
   
  I will respond to all of your questions, but it will be a few days.
   
  I will not respond as you seem to wish to a mis-representation of what I
actually wrote.
  At no time did I use "poor scholarship" in my writing nor did I say "not
empirically grounded" Any implication you may have drawn is your own.
   
  I did say that there are terms that have been reified, turned into tropes
and subsequently cited. I gave an example of "cyberspace". I offer
additional an additional term such as "virtual group or community" which
carries the implication of "almost like" a group or community. In context
they are presented as if they have been explicitly defined. No proof of
"virtuality" has been offered and yet it has been cited as support for other
assertions. 
   
  The term "ties" is another. I presume that this speaks to an internal
psychological state but has not been operationalized. There are hundreds of
sites to this paper.
   
  I have no problem with using them as long as they can be operationized to
the context.
   
  I will not cite particular papers so as to not appear to be rendering an
ad homenim attack.
   
  Respectfully,
   
  Sam

Bob Rehak <brehak1 at swarthmore.edu> wrote:
  Dear Sam,

Your reply appears to address only one of Dr. Eskow's queries, to wit:
"Who are these leaders, and what is the nature of their objections? Why
are they anonymous?"

Here are his remaining questions, redacted and numbered for your
convenience:

1. Why this need to find precise boundaries for a word that encompasses
many realms of meaning, that includes technology and the people that use
it and the uses they make of it--and much more?

2. What are the reasons you have for this belief [i.e. "I have reason to
believe that lack of objectification has created a situation in which
incomplete and imperfect understanding of the many of these tropes and
definitions has created the manufacturing of trolls when none exist"]?

3. Can you give us one or two examples of poor scholarship associated with
AOIR--scholarship that is not "empirically grounded"?

We respectfully await your answers. (I'm particularly interested in your
response to #3.)

Best wishes,

-- 
Bob Rehak
Visiting Assistant Professor
Film and Media Studies
Swarthmore College

Associate Editor
Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal


_______________________________________________
The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/


 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done
faster.
_______________________________________________
The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/