larp theory - 'The Shadows were right'
Something I came across while rereading the course material today was the 'crisis' in psychology in 1970's. Essentially, it was between the traditional experimental/statistical approach and the more modern qualitaitive/discourse/social/critical approach. At the time, academics got quite angry speaking about these things. The critical approach has become well established in the UK now, with both sides co-existing. However, they co-exist by not talking to each other. Essentially the subject consists of a massive chasm, which at it's route I think stems back to whether psychology is/should be a 'hard' or 'soft' science (or indeed whether it should be a BSc or a BA). As the authors of the course text (and a government review of academia which they quote) point out, this isn't particularly productive.
What this reminded me of is the Larp community. Back in the early years of this decade, the larp scene was full of angry vocal debates. In the UK, the archive of Pagga has a lot of examples of this. Abroad, Turku got published, followed by the 'Gamer's bill of rights,' and lots of emotional 'one true way'-ism stances. These days the larp scene seems to be a lot more relaxed, with a lot of recognition of diversity. While this is a lot more friendly, I think I can see a flaw with this. Accepting each style as it's own localised 'truth' gets in the way of useful discussion.
Less seriously, there is something else this reminds me.
In the IC cosmology of the swedish elf larp (Trollpack is the OC name of the group), there are two gods that take turns (on a cycle that lasts for thousands of years) being active while the other slumbers (the blind goddess of justice, and the dragon god of conflict/chaos). Not unlike the real babylonian mythology that Babylon 5 is based on. Currently the god of chaos is awake, and his favoured race the dark elves (with a butch culture with classical & fascist undertones) have gone in 200 years (very quick by elven standards) from being a repressed minority to the dominant power in the world. However, they have now hit the fundemental paradox of the revolutionary. Once you win, you try to maintain your status quo, and end up as a force for stasis, trying to imprint your order on the world. They don't have anyone worthy or suitable left to make war upon, and their culture and society is failling apart. The more they stamp down internal rebels, the further they move from their divinly appointed purpose for being.
The point - conflict (at least in the context of academic debate) can actually be a good thing, in that it's a mechanism for exchange of ideas and growth.
What this reminded me of is the Larp community. Back in the early years of this decade, the larp scene was full of angry vocal debates. In the UK, the archive of Pagga has a lot of examples of this. Abroad, Turku got published, followed by the 'Gamer's bill of rights,' and lots of emotional 'one true way'-ism stances. These days the larp scene seems to be a lot more relaxed, with a lot of recognition of diversity. While this is a lot more friendly, I think I can see a flaw with this. Accepting each style as it's own localised 'truth' gets in the way of useful discussion.
Less seriously, there is something else this reminds me.
In the IC cosmology of the swedish elf larp (Trollpack is the OC name of the group), there are two gods that take turns (on a cycle that lasts for thousands of years) being active while the other slumbers (the blind goddess of justice, and the dragon god of conflict/chaos). Not unlike the real babylonian mythology that Babylon 5 is based on. Currently the god of chaos is awake, and his favoured race the dark elves (with a butch culture with classical & fascist undertones) have gone in 200 years (very quick by elven standards) from being a repressed minority to the dominant power in the world. However, they have now hit the fundemental paradox of the revolutionary. Once you win, you try to maintain your status quo, and end up as a force for stasis, trying to imprint your order on the world. They don't have anyone worthy or suitable left to make war upon, and their culture and society is failling apart. The more they stamp down internal rebels, the further they move from their divinly appointed purpose for being.
The point - conflict (at least in the context of academic debate) can actually be a good thing, in that it's a mechanism for exchange of ideas and growth.