[Air-l] "lurking"

[Casey O'Donnell]

On 5/11/07, James Whyte <whyte.james at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The greater implication of this thread is about "labeling" and the inherent potential for negative impact.
>
>   IMHO, labeling is neither scholarly or useful.
>
>   Howard Becker, in the book "Outsiders" clearly spells out the impact that this variety of stereotypeing has particular  impact on social research.

Hmmm...we seem to be careening off course. But...

I would like to note that you cannot do otherwise when it comes to
labeling. It's how we (humans) work. Now, labels in and of themselves
do work beyond what we intend, but presuming that somehow you're above
it or beyond it is terribly faulty. And actually many would say that
labeling is necessary for academics and scholars, and extremely
useful.

"That behavior" is a label.
"Deviant behavior" is also a label.
"Abnormal behavior" is also a label.

Each does different work. This, not that. What if instead I said:

"Playful behavior" (also a label)

Suddenly it has a different connotation.

I think the discussion is useful. We do need other terms, because
sometimes those we've already been using become problematic given
surrounding (contextual) sets of meanings. So we revise them. This is
where the healthy discussion is.

Having read Becker I think he's talking more about those contextual
sets of meanings and what it means for those that become labeled. Not
that labeling is undesirable.

Take my work with video game developers as an example. That's a label.
There are insiders and outsiders. I can question and pressure those
insides and outsides. But to say that no label is necessary leaves me
talking about... ?

So now let's talk about the scholarly part. A good friend of mine
looks at "technological recesses" a label that has already gotten him
cited several times. You even reference Becker's "outsiders" because
he's given it a label, and one rooted in literature. Becker is
exceedingly good at doing this, leveraging contextual meaning systems.
It is scholarly.

It is not useful and unscholarly to not interrogate these categories.
True. I thought that was what was happening.

I like Lane's label of "auditing", but he and I are both labeled
RPI/STS, and as such, I'm biased.

Cheers.
Casey