supporting arguments
Mar. 3rd, 2005 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deborahInteresting little side-effect of becoming a librarian: I go off on Internet rants far less often (less often?, you ask, if you know me. Well, yes. You should see how I used to be). Partly this is because I'm busier with new and fascinating things to learn -- I hadn't realised how bored I'd become with tech until I was in a field that inspired me again. But primarily it's because I know feel the need not to spout random bs, at least in print, unless I support it with cited facts. A desire not to let the side down, as it were.
It's clear from even a quick perusal of the librarian blogs that this isn't the case for all librarians (and here my hindbrain goes again, saying prove it! link to some counterexamples! and I angrily smack it down explaining that there's no need to go taking the piss out of my peers, as Michael Gorman's doing a fine job of the for the entire field, and quite embarassing it is, thank you very much Mr. "not an idiot or a luddite, really I'm not" Gorman). Library bloggers, just like other bloggers, seem to do a mix of citing proof and just spouting nonsense. But I've gotten much better at disclaiming my nonsense spouting lately as merely my own fevered ramblings. And in this location, I find I never post at all because I want to be able to support everything I say before I say it.
Some time ago, for example, I wanted to offer a screed about how it's incorrect to refer to former presidents as "Mr. President". I wasn't going to cite Miss Manners, as authoritative, though, so I had to do some further research. None of the standard federal reference books at our well-stocked library covered such information. The federal websites are fairly good at foreign protocol, but not nearly so thorough at matters of American protocol. Eventually I ILL'd a few books on such matters and found my answer in Protocol: The Complete Handbook of Diplomatic, Official & Social Usage (Mary Jane McCaffree, Pauline Innis, Katherine Daley Sand. Dallas: Durban House, 2002), the authoritative guide to such matters. But wait, I thought. What makes Protocol authoratative? Who decides on matters of formal courtesy? Personally I'd like to say Miss Manners but I doubt that will fly in the state department. Or perhaps it's true because the 25th anniversary edition got a stellar review by none less than Robert Balay in a recent issue of Choice.
In this case, I believe that Protocol is authorative because the people who matter -- in this case, the state department -- believe it is [1] . Like all prescriptive reference books, truth through common acceptance. Of course, since most elected officials and newscasters refer to ex-presidents as "Mr. President" or "President [name]" all the time, saying "it's unacceptable" is somewhat meaningless. In the long run, the official protocol will change to match the convention, just as business suits have become appropriate eveningwear for politicians.
In any case, it made the question of how I support the prescriptive statement "you don't call former presidents 'Mr. President'" necessarily qualified. Now it's "you dont, according to Miss Manners or Mary Jane McCaffree, and McCaffree seems to be generally accepted as official by the US State Department, and who put them in charge of etiquette, anyhow?" The United States Congress did, shouts my hindbrain.
Citing authorities is very strange when you're looking for authorities on societal conventions. Etiquette, after all, is a set of guidelines theoretically agreed upon by the collective, kind of like wikipedia.
It's clear from even a quick perusal of the librarian blogs that this isn't the case for all librarians (and here my hindbrain goes again, saying prove it! link to some counterexamples! and I angrily smack it down explaining that there's no need to go taking the piss out of my peers, as Michael Gorman's doing a fine job of the for the entire field, and quite embarassing it is, thank you very much Mr. "not an idiot or a luddite, really I'm not" Gorman). Library bloggers, just like other bloggers, seem to do a mix of citing proof and just spouting nonsense. But I've gotten much better at disclaiming my nonsense spouting lately as merely my own fevered ramblings. And in this location, I find I never post at all because I want to be able to support everything I say before I say it.
Some time ago, for example, I wanted to offer a screed about how it's incorrect to refer to former presidents as "Mr. President". I wasn't going to cite Miss Manners, as authoritative, though, so I had to do some further research. None of the standard federal reference books at our well-stocked library covered such information. The federal websites are fairly good at foreign protocol, but not nearly so thorough at matters of American protocol. Eventually I ILL'd a few books on such matters and found my answer in Protocol: The Complete Handbook of Diplomatic, Official & Social Usage (Mary Jane McCaffree, Pauline Innis, Katherine Daley Sand. Dallas: Durban House, 2002), the authoritative guide to such matters. But wait, I thought. What makes Protocol authoratative? Who decides on matters of formal courtesy? Personally I'd like to say Miss Manners but I doubt that will fly in the state department. Or perhaps it's true because the 25th anniversary edition got a stellar review by none less than Robert Balay in a recent issue of Choice.
In this case, I believe that Protocol is authorative because the people who matter -- in this case, the state department -- believe it is
In any case, it made the question of how I support the prescriptive statement "you don't call former presidents 'Mr. President'" necessarily qualified. Now it's "you dont, according to Miss Manners or Mary Jane McCaffree, and McCaffree seems to be generally accepted as official by the US State Department, and who put them in charge of etiquette, anyhow?" The United States Congress did, shouts my hindbrain.
Citing authorities is very strange when you're looking for authorities on societal conventions. Etiquette, after all, is a set of guidelines theoretically agreed upon by the collective, kind of like wikipedia.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 03:47 am (UTC)