Memories of havens past.
Feb. 16th, 2004 09:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Disclaimer: This post is probably going to piss some people off. I'm not doing it just for the fun of hosting a Sacred Cow BBQ. I welcome negative comments as well as the other kind, but if you can't stand to hear alt.callahans criticized at all, then probably you don't want to click through. Contrariwise, if you're not even slightly interested in alt.callahans or the place it used to have in my life, then probably you don't want to click through either.
I've said a lot of intemperate things about alt.callahans in my time - some of them intemperately positive, some of them intemperately negative. I was spurred by the latest alt.callahans flamewar - the latest one to spill over into my notice, outside the group - to give some thought to what exactly it was that made a.c. so... much. Here's what I've come up with, which may not be my final destination:
Alt.callahans privileges strongly and/or skillfully evoked emotion over most other types of discourse. That's not meant to be just a nicer way of saying that alt.callahans rewards drama queens, because although I think that's true, I also think it's more complicated than that. Posts which contain strong and eloquent expressions of emotion, and posts which skillfully use the third-person narrative conventions of alt.callahans to evoke strong emotions in others, receive the lion's share of positive attention, approval, and support. The rise and fall of my enthusiasm for alt.callahans pretty much parallels the extent to which I thought that was a good thing.
There are definitely good aspects to it. I did a fair amount of intense emotional expression myself, and I got a lot of validation for doing so. I was good at it. I also liked that people were encouraged to be aware of the emotional impact of "objective" arguments they were making, especially when those arguments were fundamentally callous. I liked that emotionally closed or private or frightened people had a safe place to open up, and received encouragement to do so. I still think those are good things.
But it's not always good. I noticed times in which people who skillfully evoked emotions in the group seemed to be relatively protected from challenges that their arguments were illogical, unfair, untrue, or exaggerated. People who hurt were given boundless sympathy, which was a good thing - except when it came to seem that the strong expression of hurt was all that was expected of them - not efforts to solve their problems, and not responsibility for the parts of their problems that were manifestly their own fault.
I don't think that this happened just because drama queens suck the energy out of every room they enter. In the first place, when I started spending a lot of time in other online venues I noticed that some of the same people who were very successful at garnering massive positive attention in alt.callahans would completely fail to do so in, for example, alt.poly - despite using the same tactics.
But also, I think that alt.callahans views intense emotional disclosure as a positive good, and views encouraging emotional expression as a major purpose of the newsgroup. Sometimes, quoting Spider Robinson, we'd say "we're trying to get telepathic." And often it seemed that proof that we were "getting telepathic" was how skillfully we were able to get other people swept up in our negative feelings.
Alt.callahans, as I knew it, was never a place where people would be encouraged to "put the best face on things." Sometimes that was a good thing, as when people were bottling up painful emotions they needed permission to feel and express. But other times it was not a good thing, as when negative emotions seemed to be amplified for amplification's sake. The third-person convention of a lot of the posts really encouraged that sort of thing - posts in which angry people described acts of property destruction or personal violence, or in which sad people had every synonym of "dark" and "empty" available with which to decorate their surroundings. Some people got quite skilled at it. They were soothed and reassured, but they weren't particularly encouraged to develop perspective.
I got as caught up in it as anyone else. I was a good enough descriptive and persuasive writer that I was able to inject my posts with a lot of the strongest emotions I felt. Emotions also bled from the newsgroup to me - I would have strong emotional reactions to newsgroup discussions that would leave me shaking or raging or crying in real life. For a long time, I thought that it just meant that I had made exceptionally good friends in alt.callahans - and I had. But I also began to realize that the shared experience of intense emotion seemed to be something deliberately sought after, and in some cases seemed to be the final goal rather than a first step towards a solution. That's about when I became disaffected and left.
There was a school of psychotherapeutic thought in the 70s - which, I don't think coincidentally, is when Spider Robinson was writing his stories - that encouraged emotional catharsis as The Therapeutic Answer. Primal scream therapy, that sort of thing. Echoes of it survive to the present day in parts of the self-help movement and in the "debriefing therapy" people are encouraged to go through after a trauma. The underlying philosophy of these treatments is the "hydraulic theory" of emotion - the idea that strong feelings build up and you have to drain them off to get back to normal. The problem is that if you encourage people to express more and more anger, they typically just get angrier and angrier. In most cases, we don't drain off our negative emotions by expressing them ever more intensely - we strengthen and renew them.
I think that some people are far enough to the inexpressive end of the spectrum that alt.callahans is a godsend to them, and helps them develop the ability to express themselves and seek help from others. That's an unmitigated good thing. I think that many other people are levelheaded enough not to get caught up in the maelstrom. But I think that there's a third group of people who are encouraged by alt.callahans to deal with emotions in ways that become unhealthy. And that's the main reason I left.
I've said a lot of intemperate things about alt.callahans in my time - some of them intemperately positive, some of them intemperately negative. I was spurred by the latest alt.callahans flamewar - the latest one to spill over into my notice, outside the group - to give some thought to what exactly it was that made a.c. so... much. Here's what I've come up with, which may not be my final destination:
Alt.callahans privileges strongly and/or skillfully evoked emotion over most other types of discourse. That's not meant to be just a nicer way of saying that alt.callahans rewards drama queens, because although I think that's true, I also think it's more complicated than that. Posts which contain strong and eloquent expressions of emotion, and posts which skillfully use the third-person narrative conventions of alt.callahans to evoke strong emotions in others, receive the lion's share of positive attention, approval, and support. The rise and fall of my enthusiasm for alt.callahans pretty much parallels the extent to which I thought that was a good thing.
There are definitely good aspects to it. I did a fair amount of intense emotional expression myself, and I got a lot of validation for doing so. I was good at it. I also liked that people were encouraged to be aware of the emotional impact of "objective" arguments they were making, especially when those arguments were fundamentally callous. I liked that emotionally closed or private or frightened people had a safe place to open up, and received encouragement to do so. I still think those are good things.
But it's not always good. I noticed times in which people who skillfully evoked emotions in the group seemed to be relatively protected from challenges that their arguments were illogical, unfair, untrue, or exaggerated. People who hurt were given boundless sympathy, which was a good thing - except when it came to seem that the strong expression of hurt was all that was expected of them - not efforts to solve their problems, and not responsibility for the parts of their problems that were manifestly their own fault.
I don't think that this happened just because drama queens suck the energy out of every room they enter. In the first place, when I started spending a lot of time in other online venues I noticed that some of the same people who were very successful at garnering massive positive attention in alt.callahans would completely fail to do so in, for example, alt.poly - despite using the same tactics.
But also, I think that alt.callahans views intense emotional disclosure as a positive good, and views encouraging emotional expression as a major purpose of the newsgroup. Sometimes, quoting Spider Robinson, we'd say "we're trying to get telepathic." And often it seemed that proof that we were "getting telepathic" was how skillfully we were able to get other people swept up in our negative feelings.
Alt.callahans, as I knew it, was never a place where people would be encouraged to "put the best face on things." Sometimes that was a good thing, as when people were bottling up painful emotions they needed permission to feel and express. But other times it was not a good thing, as when negative emotions seemed to be amplified for amplification's sake. The third-person convention of a lot of the posts really encouraged that sort of thing - posts in which angry people described acts of property destruction or personal violence, or in which sad people had every synonym of "dark" and "empty" available with which to decorate their surroundings. Some people got quite skilled at it. They were soothed and reassured, but they weren't particularly encouraged to develop perspective.
I got as caught up in it as anyone else. I was a good enough descriptive and persuasive writer that I was able to inject my posts with a lot of the strongest emotions I felt. Emotions also bled from the newsgroup to me - I would have strong emotional reactions to newsgroup discussions that would leave me shaking or raging or crying in real life. For a long time, I thought that it just meant that I had made exceptionally good friends in alt.callahans - and I had. But I also began to realize that the shared experience of intense emotion seemed to be something deliberately sought after, and in some cases seemed to be the final goal rather than a first step towards a solution. That's about when I became disaffected and left.
There was a school of psychotherapeutic thought in the 70s - which, I don't think coincidentally, is when Spider Robinson was writing his stories - that encouraged emotional catharsis as The Therapeutic Answer. Primal scream therapy, that sort of thing. Echoes of it survive to the present day in parts of the self-help movement and in the "debriefing therapy" people are encouraged to go through after a trauma. The underlying philosophy of these treatments is the "hydraulic theory" of emotion - the idea that strong feelings build up and you have to drain them off to get back to normal. The problem is that if you encourage people to express more and more anger, they typically just get angrier and angrier. In most cases, we don't drain off our negative emotions by expressing them ever more intensely - we strengthen and renew them.
I think that some people are far enough to the inexpressive end of the spectrum that alt.callahans is a godsend to them, and helps them develop the ability to express themselves and seek help from others. That's an unmitigated good thing. I think that many other people are levelheaded enough not to get caught up in the maelstrom. But I think that there's a third group of people who are encouraged by alt.callahans to deal with emotions in ways that become unhealthy. And that's the main reason I left.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 03:51 am (UTC)I find that more and more my primary impulse when people go balistically dramatic is to want to slap them and tell them to grow up, get a life, stop whining. This can't be a good thing, and - along with the boring, angry political threads - it's one reason I rarely do more than skim these days.
If it weren't for a very few people I don't "see" anywhere else, I would have unsubscribed some time ago. I think it may be time for me to do that, after all.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 03:58 am (UTC)Having never been someone who needed help being open about their emotions, I was always somewhat baffled at people not offering advice or opinions on what other people were expressing, or getting shot down for doing so.
It's nice to see someone explaining why that might be a good thing, and also why it might be a bad thing. Makes me feel a bit better for being confused by it and thinking it's a bad thing.
something like a paraphrase
Date: 2004-02-17 04:04 am (UTC)If you think of validation as a metaphorical drink, I think that's the case with a lot of us who are okay with moving on, remembering the good times.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:21 pm (UTC)-J
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 02:25 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 04:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 04:58 am (UTC)[thoughtful look]
Date: 2004-02-17 06:12 am (UTC)I'm sorta glad that the people I'm most interested in reading (you, Sailor Jim, Barnstead, etc.) have moved to LJ; I can read what you have to say without my RDA of angst. [grin] Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 08:02 am (UTC)... I should probably go sleep before I try to explain that anymore. :]
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 10:53 am (UTC)And I am a fan of the books, and intend, at some point, to open a bar that would be something like that in reality.
And so I've been trying to pay a lot of attention to what a.c. does right, and what they do very, very wrong.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that, while strong expression of strong emotion can be cathartic for a while, after a point, it simply reinforces the emotion, instead of releasing it. This is why many religious traditions have concepts of "mourning periods" -- you get THIS long to express your emotion strongly, and then, after that, it's unseemly to still be in INTENSE mourning.
From what I've picked up -- and this is all second hand or worse -- a.c. appears to be real good at the "expressing emotions" part, and real bad at the "ending the mourning period" part.
That means that you never resolve anything, and you just build up more and more free-floating angst, until the entire Bar collapses under its weight. Repeatedly.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:25 pm (UTC)And I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a REAL-LIFE sacred cow barbecue about alt.callahans. Can't you just see it? Everybody all "pass the pulled pork" and sitting around reminiscing about the good times and the bad. Heh.
-J
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:36 pm (UTC)But seriously, I'm glad you found it interesting. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are parallels with other groups... but you're right, probably you shouldn't quote this post in its entirety anywhere else. If I'm going to be lynched (and at this point it doesn't seem that I am, given that it seems to be just my fellow disaffected reading this post), I want it to be by people who know me. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:34 pm (UTC)a.c. helped me get through that, and I will always be grateful - as well as for the wonderful people I met.
One of the ways it helped was that I got called on it when my opinions were poorly thought out, or lacking knowledge.
The thing that feels different to me now, and one of the reasons I don't go there anymore, is that when I was called out it was, mostly, with respect. People pointed out where they thought my argument was lacking and encouraged me to rethink. Then the atmosphere seemed to change, and the calling out became mean - it seemed like it was more about scoring points than being helpful.
It still feels like that - like there's less dialogue and more "look at me, I'm clever!" - which is, of course, where the whole drama queen thing comes in.
That being said, however, the people who are there now are no doubt feeling some benefit.
I used to wonder how anyone could just leave a.c. and move on - it was, after all, the most wonderful place to be. Now I know. It's a place that's there when you need it - and when you don't anymore, well, then you move on.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:35 pm (UTC)And, there was something about the fact that the ideas can be dangerous if abused, which I think ties into the 'dramatics' issue.
But I think that the thing that bothered me the most was that there was some loss in balance, or desire for balance, or something. Or, maybe it was just that it took many years for my dreams to die, and see what the place really was... just a place. One that is what it's made to be, and one I didn't have time and energy for.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:58 pm (UTC)"This is longer than I thought it would get, Rivka -- just let me add that meeting you and Misha, and having that lovely dance together in the meadow through the x-window, will always be treasured memories."
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 02:04 pm (UTC)I see similar cycles with many "support" groups.
Perhaps this is all just a way of teaching us moderation in all things.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 04:34 am (UTC)As to support groups - this is certainly something I've noticed in both the diabetes support group and an online OA group - people are very forgiving. There's a lot of telling people not to worry if they slip up - they are, after all, only human. I find this less than helpful for me. When I screw up I need someone to give me a big fat kick in the ass - especially when it's with food. Support along the "it's all right" line just allow me to continue kidding myself that it is, in fact, all right and to go along my merry way regardless.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 03:05 pm (UTC)What you're saying here reminds me of something else entirely. In the early eighties, when "support groups" were beginning to flourish, a friend of mine, a nurse who had benefitted from several such, put together a support group for men with anger and violence issues. In their second meeting, one of them explained the problems he had with his wife and her infidelity, and the other men expressed their support by suggesting that there were enough of them to get up a lynch mob and go and bash the offending party. My friend decided after this that perhaps validation and support were not what angry violent people needed most...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 04:49 pm (UTC)