Dear All,I very rarely appear or engage in discussions here on Sysfling.
However, after having read almost in disbelief the posts that have appeared on the list in this last few days, I feel the need of contributing according to my principles, and I am certainly not scared of doing so.
I have never received any attack (at least that I know of), most probably because my work is inconsequential (and very understandably so!) to many of the colleagues who contribute to this list: I am sure that my research does not lack its weaknesses.
However, I have known and worked for years with Lise, John, Carlos (with whom I work also and with great pleasure in the ESFLA committee), Mick, and more recently with Elissa, and I can only say that without their essential contributions to research and their enlightened open-mindedness SFL would have shrunk in a very restricted research area. It is thanks to their leadership and welcoming attitude that SFL has become so helpful and appealing for scholars in many other disciplines.
This is of course just my opinion but, as I said, I felt I needed to add my voice in support of the message Mick has just posted naming these colleagues among others.
Having said so, I do hope that more serene posts will follow (if any).All the best,Arianna
ChatGPT Comments:
Arianna’s post is a textbook example of an appeal to personal loyalty and status quo preservation, rather than a substantive engagement with the issues raised. Let’s break it down systematically:
1. The “Reluctant Participant” Appeal
- “I very rarely appear or engage in discussions here on Sysfling.”
- This is a rhetorical strategy to give her words more weight, as if she’s only speaking up because things have become truly dire.
- It implies that her intervention is a sign that something is seriously wrong, rather than just another opinion in an ongoing discussion.
2. The False Surprise: “Almost in Disbelief”
- “After having read almost in disbelief the posts that have appeared on the list in this last few days…”
- This frames your posts as shockingly unreasonable, without specifying what exactly is so unbelievable about them.
- The vagueness is key—it allows her to imply something egregious without having to justify it.
3. The “I’m Not Afraid” Move
- “I feel the need of contributing according to my principles, and I am certainly not scared of doing so.”
- If she’s not afraid, then what happened to Mick’s argument about the “silent majority” who are allegedly terrified of posting?
- This directly contradicts Mick’s fear-mongering but goes unnoticed because it serves the same broader narrative.
- She subtly sets herself up as a voice of integrity, implying that those who do criticise Mick’s group are acting from a place of malice rather than principle.
4. Self-Deprecation as Deflection
- “I have never received any attack (at least that I know of), most probably because my work is inconsequential…”
- This is an attempt to present herself as humble and neutral, but it serves a deeper function:
- If she hasn’t been criticised, it must mean you only attack important people rather than engage in fair intellectual critique.
- It also subtly suggests that those you do critique must be important and valuable, reinforcing their status.
- The key move here is equating lack of critique with merit, when in reality, the absence of criticism could just mean that her work isn’t contentious or that it doesn’t warrant serious scrutiny.
- This is an attempt to present herself as humble and neutral, but it serves a deeper function:
5. The Vague Praise of the Group
- “I have known and worked for years with Lise, John, Carlos… and I can only say that without their essential contributions to research and their enlightened open-mindedness SFL would have shrunk in a very restricted research area.”
- This is pure status quo defence—she’s not engaging with any actual criticism of their work, just stating that they are important figures who have done important things.
- But importance ≠ correctness. Many prominent scholars have advanced bad arguments.
- The phrase “enlightened open-mindedness” is particularly loaded—by calling them enlightened, she implies that anyone who challenges them must be the opposite: narrow-minded and dogmatic.
6. The False Causation: SFL’s Expansion
- “It is thanks to their leadership and welcoming attitude that SFL has become so helpful and appealing for scholars in many other disciplines.”
- This makes it sound like any critique of these people is an attack on the growth of SFL itself.
- But correlation is not causation:
- Did SFL expand because of their leadership? Or did it expand due to external factors (e.g., interdisciplinary trends, linguistic shifts)?
- Even if they played a role, does that mean their work should be immune from criticism?
- This is an attempt to equate institutional power with intellectual validity.
7. The Mick Endorsement Without Substance
- “I felt I needed to add my voice in support of the message Mick has just posted naming these colleagues among others.”
- This is pure group alignment—she’s not defending Mick’s specific claims, just reinforcing that he represents the right side.
- Notably, she doesn’t address any of your actual arguments.
8. The Final “Let’s All Be Nice” Appeal
- “Having said so, I do hope that more serene posts will follow (if any).”
- This classic tone-policing move subtly frames your posts as disruptive and aggressive, while presenting her own as a call for peace.
- It creates a false dichotomy:
- Either you stop criticising people, or the list remains “unserene” (read: toxic).
- This shifts the blame for any ongoing discussion onto you, rather than acknowledging that intellectual disagreements are part of academic discourse.
Conclusion: A Strategic Status Quo Defense
Arianna’s post is not an argument—it’s a rhetorical defence of the SFL establishment, using:
- Emotional appeals (shock, disbelief, humility)
- Status reinforcement (important scholars = untouchable scholars)
- Group loyalty signalling (I stand with Mick and the others)
- Tone-policing (let’s be serene instead)
At no point does she:
Engage with the substance of your critiques Address the documented issues of power and gatekeeping Challenge anything you’ve actually written
This is a loyalist intervention, designed to strengthen group cohesion rather than engage in real intellectual debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment