Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker is hard to categorize. There are times I feel she is dead on target and other times I think she borders on lunacy. Her current diatribe on the blogosphere falls into the latter category. In her most recent column, she unwittingly admits to having a class bias.
In her essay, "For civilization's sake, let's ignore the worst of blogs", she makes a few salient points like don't believe everything written on a blog.
Of course, that is plain commonsense. No one should accept anything carte blanche, whatever the source. While this is very true for blogs, it's just as true for the mainstream media.
But one part of her column exposes her as a classist (fill in the word you prefer most here).
In her essay, "For civilization's sake, let's ignore the worst of blogs", she makes a few salient points like don't believe everything written on a blog.
Of course, that is plain commonsense. No one should accept anything carte blanche, whatever the source. While this is very true for blogs, it's just as true for the mainstream media.
But one part of her column exposes her as a classist (fill in the word you prefer most here).
I mean no disrespect to the many brilliant people out there --— professors, lawyers, doctors, philosophers, scientists and journalists who also happen to blog. Again, they know who they are. But we should beware and resist the rest of the ego-gratifying rabble who contribute only snark, sass and destruction.
First, she seems to be saying that only professional people should blog. If you have an advanced degree in a scholarly field, then blog away. However, if you only possess a B.A., high school diploma or less, then, by her strict criteria, you have no business expressing yourself in public.
How incredibly pompous can you get? Intelligence is not merely measured by the amount of college degrees a person possesses. I know of many people, with rudimentary formal education, who are great social commentators and offer keen insights on the world around us.
I'm not expressing this opinion as a defense mechanism. If I didn't hold a college degree, some might say that I feel attacked and must defend my honor. Quite the contrary. I've earned two bachelors and a masters degree. Yet, I understand that possessing these 3 pieces of paper doesn't necessarily make me any smarter than the next person.
The other obvious problem with Parker's formulation is that, just because a person is a "scholar", this certainly doesn't mean that they aren't consumed with ego-gratifying purposes. How we each comport ourselves is part and parcel of our unique personalities; it has nothing to do with our level of educational and educational achievements.
How incredibly pompous can you get? Intelligence is not merely measured by the amount of college degrees a person possesses. I know of many people, with rudimentary formal education, who are great social commentators and offer keen insights on the world around us.
I'm not expressing this opinion as a defense mechanism. If I didn't hold a college degree, some might say that I feel attacked and must defend my honor. Quite the contrary. I've earned two bachelors and a masters degree. Yet, I understand that possessing these 3 pieces of paper doesn't necessarily make me any smarter than the next person.
The other obvious problem with Parker's formulation is that, just because a person is a "scholar", this certainly doesn't mean that they aren't consumed with ego-gratifying purposes. How we each comport ourselves is part and parcel of our unique personalities; it has nothing to do with our level of educational and educational achievements.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.