[AktiviX-request] Re: [AktiviX-discuss] aktivix and academic/activist projects: principled objections? ?
jmr59 at hermes.cam.ac.uk
Wed Jan 11 17:37:51 UTC 2006
(responding on-list, citing with permission)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, GarconDuMonde wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> hi josh,
> you just wrote to me; was that intended or was it meant to go to the list as
> well? anyway, here are some responses...
> Josh Robinson wrote:
>>> i also wanna say that both harry and alan have expressed my views,
>>> probably more eloquently than i have. to reiterate: i think there is
>>> activism, which has as harry states a goal of "social change" and then
>>> there is commercialism, where things are measured in terms of their
>>> financial/monetary value.
>> Yes, I agree with that. I don't think that research, however academic,
>> _necessarily_ falls into the latter category.
> agreed. but i was referring to this case, whereby the implication seemed
> to be that we should host the list as they were giving us money.
It has also been argued (I forget whether here or on the request list)
that we should support the project regardless of whether we receive any
money from it.
>>> just because you are an academic, doesn't mean you can't be an
>>> activist as well; however, i see no way at all that being an academic
>>> automatically makes you an activist, even if you are taking part in
>>> "research related to activism"
>> I agree with that (I know hundreds of academics who are in no way
>> activists) -- my claim was that 'reasearch related to activism' does
>> not (necessarily) imply 'not activism'.
> and i agree with you here - although i'd have to add the claim that
> 'reasearch related to activism' does not (necessarily) imply 'activism'
> either. in fact, i think that it is actually pretty much a
> "non-description" in that it doesn't really say anything at all about
> the research ;-)
I would agree. Your initial email, in contrast, said
'"research related to activism" i.e. not activism.'
That _is_ arguing that 'research related to activism' does imply 'not
activism'. Have you changed your mind? Or was that post not an accurate
reflection of your views?
More information about the AktiviX-discuss