Putting the Logos to Work: A Reply to Meyer

Abstract

Journalist Janet Malcolm recently published several articles and a book in which she accused her own profession of manipulation and deceit in its listening and interviewing practices. Specifically, she focused on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case, on which Joe McGinniss' book, Fatal Vision, was based. McGinniss, she claimed, fostered a close and seemingly empathic relationship with the accused in order to betray him later—and in this event Malcolm saw the prototypical journalist-interviewee relationship. Her accusations about the role of journalism raised intense professional scrutiny. This essay examines the case from the standpoint of journalistic listening. Are the temptations for deceptive or “slanted” empathy inherent in the journalistic interview? Does the journalist have a responsibility not only to listen to the person being interviewed, but to “listen” equally well to the demands of a developing story—as if it, too, were a living entity? Do ethical standards within journalism demand that an interviewer's listening style, especially as it is seen in empathic behavior, be congruent with his or her unexpressed conclusions?     

A Reply to My Critics

Sociological Practice -     

A Brief Reply to Dutton

ABSTRACT

This article is a brief reply to Dutton's rebuttal (Dutton, this issue) to the author's critique of Dutton's analysis of the role of gender in intimate partner violence.     

A Dialectic Technological Science Perspective: Reply to Bell

Abstract Bell's (1995) critique of our discussion of a technological science perspective for sociology is a helpful effort to maintain a balance between our emphasis on agency and creativity and on the constraining side of society. We emphasize agency as part of a dialectic between human effort and societal resistance for three reasons. First, it forces reconceptualization of the nature of the science of sociology by shifting from a positivist mode to one that is pragmatic. The meaning of scientific findings changes. Second, agency has been ignored historically while constraint has been over-emphasized. We seek to establish a balance by reentering the notion of agency into sociological discourse. Third, agency is a mechanism for modifying constraints and solving the problems associated with social technologies. In the closing paragraphs of the reply, we suggest that the view under discussion be seen as an ethical pragmatism. Agency forces us to ethical questions and a pragmatic understanding of science.     

Sarah Bernhardt,Live: A Reply to Allen Ellenzweig

This article seeks to retrieve something of the effect of Sarah Bernhardt live. It begins with a brief discussion of Sarah Bernhardt's reputation for breeches roles. From there, and in dialogue with Allen Ellenzweig's conception of Bernhardt's “persistent dualities,” the article moves on to analyze an additional duality: Bernhardt's movement between life and death. Here, I ask what the “Divine Sarah's” willingness to die nightly may tell us about anti-Semitism, social death, and the paradoxical resilience of the live.     

Intimacy Is Sharing Hurt Feelings: A Reply to David Mace

Mace's arguments concerning the love-anger cycle in marriage are criticized on philosophical (theoretical) and technical (clinical) grounds. Underneath the smoke-screen of anger there is the fire of hurt feelings. Dealingwith these feelings decreases the expression of anger and helps the couple reach "real" intimacy: the sharing of hurt feelings. Victories we can sharewith anybody. Anybody is willing to share victories with us. Hurt feelings, on the other hand, belong within the marriage.     

Theory and the Advancement of Listening Research: A Reply to Purdy

This essay provides a spirited response to Purdy's essay decrying the necessity for theory-driven listening research. In it, I correct two primary misconceptions about my previous essay and attempt to maintain a place for theorizing listening.     

On Comparing Apples with Apples Deemed Nonexistent: A Reply to Johnson

ABSTRACT

M. Johnson's rebuttal is an example of the paradigm I described to readers in my original article. Johnson develops a taxonomy of intimate violence where female initiated violence does not exist. He does this despite extensive evidence to the contrary. A recent national survey included questions about both severity and instrumentality of violence given to both genders. Intimate terrorism (as defined by a combination of instrumentality and repletion of severe violence) is perpetrated by both genders (2.6% of women and 4.2% of men). The notion that women do not initiate domestic violence is misleading to custody assessors who must consider risk to children as part of the child's best interest.