Oh for christ sake. You just pulled the EffBee Stunt. Legitimate criticism breaks out about some proposition, idea, or theory and people say, "Why you hating on me." "Why you hatin' on X" Talk about good fodder from some blog theory about the depoliticization of public life!
It is the most assinine behavior because it is an attempt to halt reasoned debate. It's a form of pre-emptive ad hominmen: ignore the arguments against ideas and positions, pretend the problem people are having is with a person or personality.
I mean, everyone who's ever disagreed with you should insist on a sleepover, that way you'll never say a critical word about any idea they advance.
Meanwhile, one of the more fascinating things about Polletta's argument is that what was a root in the demise of 60s movements was the fact that they had no models for creating consensus democracy. The rejected the Old Left's methods but had no other models, so they used what they knew: friendship as a model for solidarity.
This created problems for expanding the organization. As newcomers entered the fold, they were often more ideologically aligned with the old-timers, but couldn't break into the friendship network. It was the model of friendship - and a desire to uphold it at all costs -- that lead to the hidden networks behind the scenes where decisions got made in private, just among friends, that folks here have worried about.
It's admirable that you defend friends. I'm a mama bear about that myself. I like Carrol and awful lot and I think that sentiment is returned. We've had some knock down drag out fights but I think it's safe to say we've learned from each other. I trust that, if I advance a position he disagree with, he give me crap. Thank the Dead Guy on aStick for that.
But it's horseshit to close down debate by saying, as the moderator and owner of this list, that somehow we're attacking Dean as a person, somehow defiling her very niceness, when some of us have been taking her ideas seriously and engaging them. It'd be unfortunate if what she goes to forums and panels for is to have people say, "Hey Jodi is a nice person. Stop that." I can't think of anything that would feel more infantilizing, more Chivalrous Charlie, as if the person defending me hasn't a word to say about my ideas and can only defend me on the basis of my being "nice."
One thing about what I've heard of her on her show: she's a thoughtful person who tries to embody the ideal of scholarship and engaged fallibilistic pluralism. As an author and thinker, I suspect that she's fully capable of engaging arguments in order to make her position stronger.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)