Just this moment I came back from lunch to discover an unsigned note, penned in bright red ink, attached to my wall. It reads "I imagine, having never put yourself on the line for anything, Peace (lack of war) seems like sumum bonum. You're mistaken."
Of course now I'm intensely curious. Who left this note? What are they trying to convey? Why didn't they bother to sign it? What do they mean I've never put myself on the line? How am I mistaken? And about what?
I have to admit that this little note makes me both angry and sad. Angry, because I think our community tries to cherish open dialogue, and anonymous interventions violate that commitment. Sad, because perhaps the very reason someone felt driven to be anonymous is that they don't trust my willingness to engage, or they somehow fear that it would be dangerous to be clear about their identity.
Part of why I maintain this weblog is to create a space where I can be open about my beliefs and commitments, and also invite dialogue. That's why the "commenting" feature is always turned on. But how might I respond to this small anonymous note? Should I tack on an additional note -- perhaps in purple ink? -- and re-pin it to my bulletin board? What might I say? Help!
Posted by hessma at August 28, 2006 02:29 PMMy intial reaction to anonymous comments, in the physical world on online is to assume cowardice. Of course, that is not always the case, but that is my first reaction.
If they wanted to say something to you, they would address you, perhaps by writing a note and slipping it *under* the door.
What they did is address everyone else who reads your door.
What would I do if it happened to me? Probably make sure my contact details were clear as well as available times for discussion. If this person actually wants to talk to you they could then do so; but I suspect they are more interested in addressing the crowd.
Posted by: fernando Gros at August 28, 2006 08:52 PMYou know, that's a very good point! And one that hadn't occurred to me. I think I was taking it very personally, but it suggests it might be fun to create even more space on my door for an ongoing "graffiti dialogue" -- or at least something similar. What an interesting idea!
Posted by: Mary Hess at August 28, 2006 10:37 PMMary,
I agree - this person's tactics reflect cowardice - and their comments obviously demonstrate that they don't know you at all (assuming that you have never put yourself on the line for anything, and assuming that your definition of peace is "lack of war").
Ironic that they are essentially accusing you of cowardice, while they are demonstrating a much deeper level of cowardice by refusing to put their name to their beliefs/accusations (who is really not willing to put themselves on the line in this situation? here again they show how little they know you, assuming you would retaliate in a classroom or candidacy meeting for an honest difference of opinion).
I also agree that they seem more interested in engaging the readers of your door - especially given that your door is in a very public and fairly high-traffic area of the seminary. They also seem to think they will impress/scare off you and other readers with fancy words and a caustic tone. Too bad they felt the need to posture instead of actually dialogue.
Best of luck engaging this person, whether you ever figure out who they are or not.
Peace,
Catrina