UPDATED: Public Square or Private Club? - SXSW panel with Tiffany Brown, Melinda Casino and Barb Dybwad
I updated this post after the panel. To read my additonal notes, please click through on the continuation of this post.
Have you ever talked with Tiffany B. Brown, Melinda Casino, or Barb Dybwad about what happens when online communities decide to form exclusive groups based on identities -- gender, race and/or interest?
If not, you've been missing something -- and you have a chance to make up for it, eiher here or at SXSW Interactive if you're in Austin this weekend. Brown, Casino and Dybwad are the discussion leaders in a panel I'm moderating called, "Public Square or Private Club: Does Exclusivity Strengthen or Dilute?"
Don't expect any dictation from the podium - that's not why Hugh Forrest of SXSW asked BlogHer to produce five panels for the conference. Instead, we'll examine the big why behind organizations such as BlogHer and Brownbloggers and other gender-specific, race-specific, interest-specific gatherings online. Riffing on a list of questions I wrote down after a particularly infuriating conversation I had with a reporter last fall, we want to talk with you and examine:
- Why do some people need a special group? Why do women and/or black people and/or lesbians come together in communities online? Especially to discuss things that have nothing to do with those identities – such as work or parenting? Why not just mix it up with everyone all the time? Why the self-segregation?
- Why do words like solidarity crop-up? Give an example of things you've been able to discuss and accomplish in identity communities that you wouldn't be able to take on in a general discussion or consume in mainstream media?
- How does separatism help the discussion? Or strengthen the community? Give examples? Why would any group risk opening the door - or bother opening the door to outsiders?
- How does it change the discussion to open the door to people who don't "belong" in a group but are deeply interested in it?
- How and when does separatism hurt the discussion? Do we ultimately weaken the strength of identity-based communities by alienating people who don't "belong" in a group but are deeply interested in it? How else can we pursue meritocracy—and the financial success and cultural shift -- other than the mainstream?
- Are we hypocrites? Does exclusivity make us part of the problem we are working to achieve with mainstream culture and mainstream media?
- What about the power of dissent to make a movement or a discussion smarter – is that lost in a private space?
- What are your favorite case studies of success or failure via public square? Or private club? Or both?
So bring on the questions and comments - we want to mix it up with you.
UPDATED: Ongoing post-panel discussion
This panel was a fantastic experience - a brilliant, invested audience and the opportunity to watch Barb, Melinda and Tiffany in action. For more detail, check out Elisa Camahort, who was kind enough to live-blog the panel. At the end of the session, I recommended we continue the discussion on Tiffany's blog, Blackfeminism.org, rather than promote either the Weblogsinc or BlogHer networks. That turned out to be a good move -- the ongoing discussion is terrific. I am particularly taken by comments by John, whom, I am very sorry to say, I did not call on. <aside>I honestly tried to call on every single person who had a hand in the air, so obviously I need a better system next time. (Note to self: Urge people to insist they get their moment with the mike and remember to ask as the end who didn't get to speak and wants to.) <end aside>.
Fortunately, John has a blog -- Come To Find Out -- and wrote up this response. Here's his net-net::
"I don't believe that creating a welcome atmosphere should be something that we, the Other, should be hardcore working towards. We are using the groups we've been labeled as to help one another, and thereby creating a safe haven. Not to say someone who isn't gay can't join a gay chat etc. But what is the point of trying to include everyone into a community meant for the discussion of issues, and as an end all, a place for people of that group to feel safe in their discussions with their neighbors in the community? Are we then not catering to someone that need not be catered to?
"I feel respect should be the only issue. There are times when people who have become Other'd need to communicate with just their community members. If you aren't a member of the community, just enter with respect."
In his comments section, Janine agrees : "As someone who is 'other' on so many levels (black, queer, female, 
older, dreadlocked, mother) i agree that it's utterly necessary to have a place to communicate. more than that, i often feel an urgent need to just relax and not be 'other' with all the added attention and tension that that requires..."
These are exactly the types of issues I was talking about when I asked in advance, "Why would any group risk opening the door - or bother opening the door to outsiders? How does it change the discussion to open the door to people who don't "belong" in a group but are deeply interested in it?"
Comments