That is why I choose to transfer the judgement to a system that perpetuates such behavior instead of to those exhibiting it. Many of those making the blind posts are people I have the utmost admiration for and I even dare to call a few friends.

I am unsure of what exactly constitutes a “true self” either, but that is because the self is always changing, growing, but not day-to-day, minute-by-minute. It is a much longer process than that, although, on occasion, it can be changed in an instant.

As for Parini and Lang, they are just waffling. He keeps writing “I” this and “I” that and then talks about personae. What he is trying to say is that we all have different roles in life, many at the same time, although some come and go. And not all roles should be fully coextensive with each other. But there is only one James M. Lang or Mark R. Lindner or you.

These are completely different things, though, although they are related to the topic of professionalism. I am not advocating “sitting at the piano with [a] 4-year-old, improvising the lyrics to a song about breaking wind” in the middle of a professional situation. Although, there is nothing inherently unprofessional about that. What if you were a children’s librarian?

Yes, there is a difference in the roles we fill in our lives and it has some impact on us professionally, but I have absolutely no truck with “role players” in life, in the manner Lang is, perhaps, suggesting. [I do, or at least used to, truck with role-playing gamers, though, but there it is fantasy.]

As the Pragmatic Librarian, I could help but notice that you use the word “pragmatic” quite a few times in comment #5. Interestingly enough, I feel compelled to respond, because I don’t think I’m innocent of “blind posting” about bullying, etc.

Since I very recently started in the biblioblogosphere, I do not want to start making enemies (especially powerful ones). More or less related, I also do not want my skepticism about certain ideas to be perceived as personal attacks against those who advocate them. Besides, I’m still trying to figure out whether my own arguments are actually valid, so I shy away from “calling out” those with whom I disagree (in some cases, very strongly).

So, yes, I am also disheartened by the self-censorship we end up having to practice. However, since I have some self-doubt about my opinions, and I shift between the professional and personal in my postings, I keep struggling with ways give my “genuine self” a presence and voice online. I find most helpful what James Lang said in the Chronicle recently; that he doubts the existence of a “tiny ball of selfhood buried in my torso somewhere.” Perhaps the best solution is acting as genuine as seems comfortable. Over time, maybe that comfort zone will increase, and more of a “genuine self” can emerge with less apprehension.

Certainly, I don’t put everything about myself on the web, nor is there any single person who knows all my secrets, nor will there ever be.

I certainly do not have too many answers, and I honestly don’t feel all that brave, nor do I want to be a trailblazer, but I see no choice for myself. At least, no *healthy* choice! I have personally experienced what fragmentation and depersonalization and “professionalism” can do to a person and their family. I am still trying to recover from those years.

ranger, so very sorry to hear that! Yes, in the sciences and philosophy, at least, it is normal to, in essence, point at those who’s ideas you are discussing.

Recently, due to the various flaps in the biblioblogosphere there were many blind posts about bullying, bad behavior, etc. While I understand the very accpetable pragmatic reasons for these, I find them truly disheartening. That is one reason I made a post that I did. It attracted little public attention, although I did get some private discussions out of it. I have no idea if the intended recipient ever saw it. I also have no idea if they saw the other 4 or 5 posts that were directed at them that I can think of off the top of my head.

I am not judging the writer’s of those posts negatively, please, no one misunderstand me on this. But maybe if our world was more open to real dialogue and disagreement/resolution then those sorts of blind posts would not be required so often. Again, I do understand the pragmatic reasons for such behavior.

I also understand the pragmatic reason(s) for trying to separate the public/private from the professional. But they are not reasons that work for me, or I disagree with them.

I worry.

I’d say we’re off to a good start.

As an aside, I didn’t read the post in question, so I can’t comment on it or how it came across. This post, however, shows a true desire to start a conversation. I have found that there are conversations in the blogosphere that turn rather ugly – and that people do seem to give the impression that not all ideas are valid. These to me are unprofessional. Yet, I also attribute some of it to the fact that we as a society are still trying to figure out how to communicate appropriately in the online environment.

Just my 2 cents – which may or may not mean anything. I hope you feel better!!!