Forests and trees
5 Jan 2010
As expected, my thesis proposal went over poorly, not because the subject matter didn't grab everyone's attention (it did, quite impressively, I must say—clearly a solid topic), but because I was accused of being too vague, not focusing on specific cases in great depth, etc. etc. All of reasons B that I mentioned in my last blog post. And, in some ways, they are legitimate criticisms, but they also miss the point quite widely. I think the real message of why I intentionally chose not to take this approach was made clear by one colleague in particular who became quite perturbed, almost angry, with my thesis. "You can't make generalizations about violence. These...these classifications you've put on here, what are they, revenge, altruism, self-defense...these are meaningless, they've got nothing to do with specific situations, you could lump any sort of violence under these." Well, yes, that was kind of my point and where I was going with it, so I was a bit taken aback by the insistence. (I mean, if you could actually lump all violence into my categories, I haven't forgotten anything, hooray!) But this was nonetheless a slightly startling and irritating criticism since we were asked at the beginning not to suggest that people write the thesis we would write, but rather to grapple with it on its own terms. "Like, for instance, take the Bosnian war with the Serbians [note this was not his actual example, but I'm changing it here to protect his identity]. I mean, they're protecting their homeland. The Serbians invaded their country, so they were acting in a perfectly acceptable manner!" It took about 15 seconds to sink in. Oh yeah. He's Bosnian.
I don't really think a better argument can be made for why I have chosen not to focus on specifics. My thesis is not intended to justify any position in war. War happens. War will continue to happen with or without me rooting for it. My thesis means only to take a step back from our specific situations and ask what it is that they share on a larger level. I do not wish to write about conflicts, I wish to write about conflict. Or, to put it another way, I do not wish to write about trees, I wish to write about forests. There are already more than enough treatises on trees. I will be reading many of them in order to ask what does this birch share in common with this pecan tree and this aspen. Perhaps the birch is more like the aspen than the pecan in its morphology, but we might in the end agree that all three have leaves and roots and that if you put them all together they share enough in common that they create a coherent whole that is called a forest. This means that I might lose the nuance and fine detail of a masterwork to the lonely and stately oak, but painting with such loving detail is simply a different task than the one I have set out to do and so to say that I am at fault for not doing it simply makes no sense.
It was also suggested that perhaps painting forests was too great a task and that I might instead focus deeply on one tree and extrapolate theories from that, but this also seems to make little sense because, were we to choose the mesquite with nothing to compare it to, we might mistake its thorniness as a characteristic of all trees and thus our forest, when in fact that thorniness is an outlier within the bound of things called trees. Leaves define trees and bark defines trees but thorns do not define trees. It is thus necessary to put together, if not a comprehensive range of trees, at least a small number that will allow us to begin making tentative conclusions concerning those things which they share and those things which appear to be distinctive to certain trees. With time we can add more trees to our big picture and thus make it more accurate, but certainly we cannot start with only one if we wish a general theory of forests.
Note: It was pointed out to me after posting this that my treatment of my colleague above might be perceived as harsh or unprofessional. I should be clear that I have nothing but respect for him and we get along well. That I should occasionally be irritated by a comment in class is a) human and b) not a condemnation of my colleague. I'm simply politely disagreeing with what he said.
A work can be problematic for a lot of reasons. One of them is that it tries to accomplish too much or makes generalizations. Another one is that it is unable to be objective. Or that a methodology (any methodology) has flaws. This is true of every work. What matters, then, is not that our work is unproblematic, but that we know the problems up front and admit to their limitations and explain why we've chosen one flawed methodology in favor of another.
Given that, saying that my anonymous friend's comments were problematic does not seem to me like I am stepping out of line, being ungenerous, or treading on thin ice. I really am not intending to say anything more or less than, "here is a really great example of the specific problem I developed my thesis to avoid, even if I must trade it for other problems in doing so."
But I do hope y'all will keep telling me when you think I am being inappropriate. This scratchpad is intended as a place for me to hash out ideas, figure out where in the process I am not getting it, or make research notes to myself. I often find stories the most useful way of thinking about problems, but this is not a diary of day to day life. And I most certainly do NOT intend it as a place to talk shit about people. That is bad form and, honestly, just plain unproductive.