ANATOMY OF A SOCGRADCHAT MELEE
by Peter Brinson
Founder and President of the Brinson Sociological (BS) Institute

Having now finished my 6th year here, that officially makes me an Old Fart in the department (seriously, it's official. But you have to fill out the paperwork with Sandy Ramer to get official Old Fart status). As an Old Fart in the department, I feel it is my civic duty to instruct those of you in the first year cohort (and maybe second year cohort) in the rules of discourse on socgradchat. I have lived through the Golden Years of Socgradchat Melees, and it has been at least a year or two since a true Socgradchat Melee erupted. This thread is following a familiar pattern. First year and second year students need to be aware of this impending eruption, so that they can better understand it (or aid and abet it).

Charity, here, has been ambushed by a number of other Old Farts who are also veterans of the Golden Years. While it may take those inexperienced in Socgradchat Melees by surprise that this little molehill has somehow become a mountain, the Old Farts are used to such vigorous debates. Young grasshoppers, you should learn from this.

Step 1: you need an innocent, well-intentioned email hastily sent. Typically, the email is intended to promote some event going on or pass along some piece of information or commentary that is sociologically relevant or interesting. There is usually nothing objectionable about the intent of the email. But oftentimes, there is a single phrase that is regrettably worded or something like a link to an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory included in the email. Here, we have the first ingredient in a Socgradchat Melee.

Step 2: one individual must publicly respond to the offending email and declare that offense has been taken. Sometimes, this is done harshly; but most of the time, as is true in this case, it is done very humbly and sincerely. Elizabeth's reply to the original post succeeded in calling attention to what was problematic in the original email, did so in a way that was very deferential, and implicitly suggested a remedy: a simple apology and a mental note to be more careful next time. Sometimes, this is the end. But sometimes, you get to...

Step 3: the original sender must respond to the criticism publicly, either in an effort to clarify his/her intention or to confront the criticism through rebuttal. Here, Charity has done both. There is a mixture of politeness with pugnacity: on one hand, she apologizes, but on the other hand, in trying to clarify her original post, she (intentionally or unintentionally) reiterates the value of her original post and implicitly denies that the person taking offense has a legitimate complaint. Sometimes, the intent of this post is to not back down; other times, the intent of the post is to try to make amends, but something in the tone or phrasing comes across is too snarky, often because it is written too quickly or not proofread carefully. It is unclear, at this juncture, what the precise mix of Charity's response falls into this category. But in either case, this naturally leads to...

Step 4: other observers must weigh in. Some come to the defense of the offended (as has happened in this case). Others post something not intended to come down on one side or the other, but is merely intended to make the discussion productive. Some try to suggest a resolution. But notice that the more people respond here in Step 4, the more likely it becomes that a Melee emerges. The more people that post, the more phrases are hurled into the public sphere with a chance to offend or muddle the issue. Notice, in this email, I have already taken great strides towards offending people in the first and second year cohorts for implying that I know more than them, and others who have posted for calling them Old Farts. I'm just trying to do my part here, folks!

Step 5: Matt Vidal weighs in. Holy crap, from beyond the UW Sociology Dept. grave (I mean, Los Angeles), Matt Vidal graces us with his presence. This is serious now, folks! Matt is an expert Melee-inducer. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not, Matt's comments are frequently provocative. Look at the gauntlet he has thrown! He throws fuel on the fire by citing minor empirical evidence in support of a much broader claim, thus implicitly defending the offending position.

What's next? There are several possible courses of action.
1) Response to Matt's post that furthers the Melee. This is unlikely, given Matt's widely recognized abilities mentioned above. The Old Farts are on to him.
2) Charity apologizes. This would end the Melee.
3) Charity defends herself again. This would continue the Melee.
4) Someone posts something humorous. Brady Potts used to do this. He's not here anymore, and I'm not sure who the next likely candidate to do this is. But this usually never solves anything except entertains the rest of us.
5) Others continue to publicly post responses to the original offender or to those who have expressed offense.
6) Someone complains about the volume of emails or suggests that this discussion occur privately, not publicly.

Now, pick and choose your course of action wisely, because what you do can either kill the discussion or further provoke people.

No matter what happens, it always ends up the same way. Nobody really knows how a Socgradchat Melee gets resolved because everybody always starts reflexively deleting all the emails with this thread's subject line because they don't want to talk about it anymore. And whatever the intent of the original email, it has been lost.