In the preceding post, readers will find the concluding section of SC's series on George Lakoff and Moral Politics. Your host has one more post to deliver on the larger intellectual milieu that made it possible for that book to go wrong in the ways that it did, but it's not really about George Lakoff in particular, and so we'll call that series a wrap. But now I have a few more serious things to say, and will write in the first person for a moment.
Writing that series has been very difficult for me. I have gone through numerous drafts of each of the posts that has appeared, because I have tried to keep my own biases to a minimum, and to focus strictly on my disagreements with the linguistic claims made by Lakoff. Since Don't Think of an Elephant! is a book of prescriptive political thinking, readers will likely agree that it was considerably harder to do so in the final post. The rather shallow posting schedule of the last week reflects my attempting to wrestle with my own opinions to the detriment of regular posting, and I hope that even readers who feel I have been tough on Lakoff's writing will at least agree that I have been fair.
One sign that I take to indicate that I have accomplished my goal is that about 10 days ago, I was contacted by a journalist interested in writing about Lakoff's work. I tentatively agreed to give an interview, with the condition that my pseudonymy not be compromised. After checking with his editor, the writer agreed to those terms, and I gave him an interview where he had no information about me beyond what's published on this site. Near the end, I acknowledged that I had been debating ending the pseudonymous status of Semantic Compositions, and was told that if I wished to be quoted on the record, there was a deadline associated with doing so. By the end of the day -- comfortably before the actual deadline -- I sent him an e-mail committing myself to taking off the mask.
The reason for this is quite simple. Prof. Lakoff had previously been interviewed for the same article, and so our arguments will appear side by side in print. Should he wish to reply in a letter to the editor or some other form, I think it is only fair that he be able to address the relevant quotes squarely. I admit to also not wanting to be dismissable as merely an anonymous Internet hack, a junior-league ankle-biter.
Readers who recall that I have previously justified anonymity on employment grounds will be wondering whether or not I meant that seriously, or whether I have been fired. Rest assured that my employment remains as secure as it ever has -- which isn't saying a whole lot in the consulting business. But more seriously, addressing the question of risk to my job, I have come to believe that so long as I do not disclose any non-public information about work performed for customers, and make clear that I do not speak for the company on any other issues, that I am not in violation of any policies in the employee handbook. Employment with the company is "at will", a legal term meaning that firings do not have to be for cause, and so in some sense, the fact that this is not a prohibited activity is not even relevant. It took me a while to be comfortable with this reasoning, but I am now.
Finally, I feel that in some sense, I've gone as far as I can go anonymously. Sure, hit counts can go higher -- I've watched the daily unique visitor number nearly double between the second and tenth months of this little experiment, and I'm fully confident that with such small numbers still defining the traffic level here, this feat could be easily duplicated. But I'd like this to be more of a full-service website than just a blog (and yes, that definitely means a move is in the works, although the details and new site design are still being engineered).
Also, I want to relieve Mark Liberman of the difficulty of calling me SC at Semantic Compositions.
So here's the deal. Over the next week, I'm going to publish some mildly retrospective material about what I've tried to do, and how I've tried to go about it. Next week, out comes the first meaningful overhaul of the site since I stopped fiddling with TypePad's prefabricated templates back in January. A guy with six years of yearbook experience ought to be able to do a better graphic design than this, and what better time to debut a new site design than with a new introduction?
Some things won't change, though. The SC persona is a finely crafted one that differs from day-to-day moi in some crucial respects. Writing in the third person is a big part of that. So is the Dick Tracy Rogues' Gallery of characters known by (Relationship) SC. Mom SC, Dad SC, MGSC and a character who hasn't even shown up yet in these pages -- Oh Brother SC -- didn't ask to be written about by name or have lots of Google links about them, and I intend to respect their privacy to the maximum extent possible. Ditto for Radagast. Occasional bouts of apparent monomania are important, as are the sardonic wisecracks of the (probably) fictional editor ([did you just call Mrs. SC a "rogue"? -- ed.]).
Part of me feels that, like Dan Moore, it might have been most appropriate to roll out the big changes on a meaningful date. But the opportunity to be a media whore personality trumps such concerns (which I could only dream of just a half-year ago). So keep watching as we throw the world's most excruciatingly slow debutante ball over the next week here at Semantic Compositions.
SC (soon to be otherwise), I just wanted to say that I am impressed by and appreciate your posts on Lakoff. I'm not sure I agree with every point, but I think you've offered the first substantive critique of his political points that I've seen (and I've seen plenty of sutpid ones over the last year or so). I'm glad you got some recognition for the effort and insight.
Posted by: Chris | October 18, 2004 at 10:40 AM
I'm looking forward to the new look and the revelation of the real you!
Posted by: Blinger | October 19, 2004 at 02:47 AM