Defining and Defending the Blog
This past week fellow Daily Scribe blogger Nick Norelli asked the following questions on his blog – "Is a blog a blog if it doesn’t allow comments? And if it is then is it a blog worth reading?" My initial response was to answer "no" to both questions. Something may perhaps fit the technical definition of a blog and may even contain good information, but in my opinion, a good blog is one that allows conversation, that invites interaction and doesn't hide dissenting opinions. I find blogs where the authors pontificate on their own opinions but don't allow questions or criticisms to represent the height of arrogance. It's even worse when comments appear to be allowed, but dissenting opinions are deleted or edited or when only pre-approved voices are allowed access. Now I've deleted a handful of comments here, but only the spam and the super-creepy sexual ones. I prefer the open comment policy. But from my experience the bloggers who don't allow comments aren't interested in conversation at all – just in attempting to get everyone to think they are right. They tell the world what to believe, or (more commonly) ridicule ideas or people they don't like and then walk away. Sure some bloggers don't have time to respond to every comment, but not allowing commentary at all seems like a way of avoiding responsibility for one's opinions. But then again, I'm not a fan of having some authority on high telling me what I should believe without allowing me to question or examine their ideas.
These questions reminded me of the recent discussion we had over at the Emerging Women blog regarding the benefits blogging has brought to marginalized voices. In the church world where the voices of white men predominate (or are at least perceived to do so), blogs have provided women and others on the margins with the opportunity to have a voice. So I find it interesting that it is generally white males in positions of power who don't allow comments on their blogs or who complain (on their blog) about too many voices out there blogging. Why? Some dislike the open source nature of blog discussion preferring instead good old traditional authority. Others think there are too many voices out there for conversation to be meaningful and therefore blogging should be restricted (to those with authority perhaps?). Others don't like giving the "uneducated" or "unsupervised" the opportunity to have a voice. And perhaps some just want theirs to be the only voice that gets heard.
I admit, there can be issues with blogs. I've encountered the crazies out there (blogrush is such great entertainment – did you know that aliens will aid Jesus in his second coming by bringing him to Roswell??), I see the dangers of posting pictures of yourself partying in Cancun that any potential employer can google, and I've stuck my foot in my mouth on a few too many occasions – but I still support the freedoms it brings. I like that blogging helps me to examine my world and think critically about ideas I encounter. I like that I get pushed to justify my opinions (not that I always succeed at doing so). I like that as a mom who is often confined to the house I can have adult conversations and maintain friendships with people around the world. I like that women are breaking free from the lies the church has told them and realizing that yes, they can do theology and have a voice in these sorts of discussions. Without the blog many post-evangelical women would be left with no one to talk to, no one to encourage them, and no way to move forward in their faith. So for a man who has never experienced the same confines and dismissal as these women to say that our blogs are just noise that need to go away in order for the important voices to be better heard really irks me (even though I know that most of the men making such statements are not necessarily directing them at women).
I'm all for the conversation. I want to learn from others and I want to question, challenge, and clarify what I read online. To me, such interaction is the trademark of a good discussion, a good educational setting, or a good church not to mention a good blog. I find it frustrating these days to listen to a sermon or read a book and not be able to push deeper by questioning it. I recall the most frustrating classes in college were the ones where the profs refused to respond to questions – instead saying meaningless things like "that's a good question" and continue on with their lecture. I didn't want more notes to take, I wanted to engage with what I was learning. Blogs have provided me with that opportunity to continue learning by engaging my world. Sure I enjoy "real-life" conversations, but once a month or so is far too infrequent and I don't have the babysitting funds for much more (and don't even get me started on the local Feminist Thought Club I tried to join which ended up being a bunch of college guys trying to pick up women…). I need more than that. So I am grateful for blogs and for the discussion they should support. I am not afraid of the hard questions nor do I think the "simple questions" are just creating noise. The opportunity to read and engage daily with others is needed at this stage in my life. For me, it's what helps me grow.
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
This is great – I wouldn't think a blog is a blog if it doesn't allow discussion. To me that is the whole point – otherwise it is just an article. Honestly – I don't usually frequent those blogs. I, like you, want to be able to question and examine.
I had a situation recently on my blog where someone posted a flaming comment, anonymously. I was wondering what you think about that. It left me no avenue to discuss it or even respond other than to post. I am willing to discuss things – even differing viewpoints and agree to disagree if need be, but I don't know how to handle that. Some of my friends said that I should regulate comments, but I don't want in any way to stop the free flow of conversation. So – I posted TO anonymous – and within a few minutes I got two more comments – each more vulgar and hateful. This person was not interested in a discussion. So I think comments like that are difficult to deal with because they don't allow conversation.
In the end the comments were so crude that I blocked the IP address. I hated doing that – and realize the commenter can come again from the library or wherever. Maybe somebody just having a bad day – and I hit a nerve.
All of this to say – the flow of conversation has to be free from both directions.
Hey Jewls,
I try to respond to anonymous (I address them as "Nony Mouse") flamers with simple amusement. Rather than take their comments seriously, I just bemusedly point out how pathetic and immature they are, and how they provide a perfect illustration of everything I'm against. I figure any fair-minded reader will easily be able to see the contrast between a well-reasoned opinion and an anonymous flaming comment. They're not helping their cause any by posting those. They're just making themselves and everything they stand for look bad. In so doing, they're only reinforcing whatever point you were making, so in a way they're doing you a favor.
"did you know that aliens will aid Jesus in his second coming by bringing him to Roswell?"
I did not know this, but I am not surprised.
I find it frustrating these days to listen to a sermon or read a book and not be able to push deeper by questioning it.
when i went to a bar mitzvah one of the coolest things was the interaction between the rabbi and the congregants. the people would make comments and ask questions right there in the middle of the service. i loved it!
Interesting and true for me as well, thanks for the post Julie.
Great post.
A blog without comments is like surfing the internet without a connection.
The comments connect the the writer to the reader.When I write a post I am inviting discussion, debate, agreement, disagreement.
As a minister I would often ask for questions after a teaching. Comments, questions, disagreements were always welcome, as long as they were done in love.
Best wishes
Bruce
Jewls – like Mike said, I often let anonymous comments "speak for themselves." Sometimes I do try to engage, but such posters often have no inclination to converse, just to preach at me. I have warned a few that if they continue to refuse to engage and just continue heaping insults I will have to take "further action", but its never reached that point. To me hiding being "anonymous" is also a way to avoid responsibility for one's opinions (and I don't see stable screennames as truly anonymous…)
linda – the whole questioning tradition is huge in Jewish cultures. helps explain why Jesus did it so much!
That's pretty much what we do at our church every week!
I just want you to know that your blog is one of the better ones I've found for sparking thoughtful, reflective discussion. Thank you.
Is a blog a blog if it allows comments but doesn't have enough visitors to get them?
Is the sad little "O comments" at the bottom a symbol of unrealized potentiality?
Do we need other people's input to justify self-expression. Is a piece of art a piece of art if it is in the closet, or only when it is accepted and placed in a museum?
Just some musings of a long time, low visited, blogger.
But I do agree with you all. Unless, they are site like Instapundit, who don't have comments but are so good about linking to other blogs that the conversation becomes more multi-site than multi-comment.
Most non-comment blogs aren't like that.
Since I'm already involved in a rambling here, I also think about those blogs that have the same commentators all the time. The ones who always have the same responses and always have the expected interaction, who team up against other voices at times. A few Christian sites are like this. Very alienating really. And, in a way, are no different than blogs without comments. Instead of being a sermon, though, it's more like being mobbed by street evangelists.
Julie, I'm in absolute agreement. I've been in this since the early days. Well, 2002. Pretty early. And I can't imagine a blog without the freedom of comments. Going on 6 years and I've only deleted a handful of comments. All of them were abusive toward another commenter or wildly inappropriate. Thousands of comments from all over the world and only about 5 or 6 needed to be dealt with. In any group of humans, that's a pretty good record. Bloggers tend to be very respectful of each other. They have with me anyway.
I do wish people would remember that we have no editors. And if you're putting out a lot of stuff, you will occasionally say something unwise or that you shouldn't for one reason or another. That's part of the territory.
I don't usually read blogs that don't allow comments.
I've occasionally deleted comments — usually when they've been off-topic spam or troll posts, or purely ad hominem.
Great post by the way.