A De-Centralized Approach to “the League”‘s Identity Crisis

design_elementsLeague: ligament, ligare (tie, bind), lictor (binder), fasces (bundle), fascism. Ordinary: usual, normal, in order, religious order, order of battle. Gentlemen: male, well-to-do, of the right race or clan.


Over the last week or so I’ve been distracted by the discussion of a low level identity crisis at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. I won’t try to re-capitulate the course of several interconnected, multiply branching, mostly cordial conversations covering hundreds of comments, nor will I re-rebut the post by a League principal in which I was singled out and (gently) chastised. For now I just want to set down the outline of an idea that I did not get around to explaining.

The original jumping off point was a League post on Senate candidate Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks. Several commenters noted the familiar scarcity of female contributors, for obvious reasons felt more strongly in this context, but also tied to larger diversity concerns. At comment #400, I suggested that, well before we got to questions of the site’s actual content and its community of contributors and commenters, its name and self-presentation combined not just to repel non-“Gentlemen,” but to “evoke nostalgia for a cultural moment, an imperial moment, during which white men ruled.” I also noted that the blog “[h]osts mostly polite, thoughtful, across-the-spectrum conversations,” and that the result amounted to a kind of “study in ‘gently’ stabilizing conformity on some axes in order to increase tolerance for diversity on others.”

I received an at best mixed response, but I was also informed that diversity questions as well as the “limiting repercussions” of the site name have been acknowledged by site contributors, and have been the subject of extensive, mostly behind-the-scenes discussion. I was not surprised: Almost any project in our culture, especially any project with any political profile at all, faces this test sooner or later, and will to some extent be defined and assessed according to the results.

Even assuming achievement of a wide enough consensus in favor of change, the problem for the League is that any name change and re-design effort would risk destroying a fairly well-established blogging brand, while otherwise annoying those who are happy enough with the place as it is. That a satisfactory new concept can be found is also far from certain. Nor should the fact be lightly set aside that execution of meaningful changes in a timely, reasonably professional or at least semi-professional manner, would require substantial work on someone’s part.

An actual psychological or possibly ideological resistance to coherence or shared self-consciousness may also be playing a part here. It may even be the the most important factor. The League may in some sense not want to decide what it is or wants to be. It may prefer amorphousness to growing up: Any identity at all has “limiting repercussions.” The lack of named editors or contact-people and of any statement of purpose also reinforces the impression of a somewhat directionless enterprise. In such a circumstance, the site name, the minimal graphics, and seemingly incidental aspects of the overall presentation provide the only answers to the notorious Stockdale questions – “Who are we?” and “What are we doing here?”

The discussion, which has also included some private exchanges, has convinced me that, instead of focusing on a full-frontal assault on itself that it may not be capable of successfully carrying off, the League should consider an alternative, more gradual, organic, and indirect approach, one that also takes the whole of the site into account. Though thought and work on a full re-branding and re-design ought to continue, a first step might begin elsewhere: With augmentation and development of the site’s sub-blogs, of which there are now 10. The overall aim would be extension of a relatively loose, networked, flexible, resilient, ideologically diverse “spheres of influence” (or “polyvocal”) process rather than imposition of a relatively rigid, centralized, uniform, pseudo-coherent “global-imperial” (or “monological”) structure.

As an outsider, I do not really know what the original concept of the sub-blogs was or how it has developed, or whether in fact there is or ever was a shared and fully elaborated vision or plan. Even as a regular at the site for almost a year, I have no idea what many of those blogs are about, nor who many of the contributors are. A site history explains how the League became what it is, but offers nothing approaching an overview or map to the stars. Some of the sub-blogs may be dead weight… or they may be the best part of the site… or they may provide an entirely different way of engaging with the site… I don’t really know which is true, nor how the sub-bloggers really are expected to relate to the site as a whole.

Part of the uncertainty has to do with the lack of any simple, visually distinct and conceptually coherent main page presence for the sub-blogs in their own right. For a visitor to the League home page, the sub-blogs appear only as uninformative titles in a drop down menu, or obscurely within visually completely unprepossessing sidebar items and other incidental links. When actually visited, the sub-blogs themselves appear as reduced-functionality pages, all formatted so that the League brand dominates, and the sub-blog’s own title appears as a sidebar item. (Reversing this visual relationship should be one of the first generally adopted changes.)

My sense that the sub-blogs are at best a secondary function of the site also seems to be shared by the sub-bloggers themselves. Though at least one sub-blogger apparently refrains from posting to the main page at all, others see it as the site’s truly valuable “real estate.” The effect in the latter case is an incipient “tragedy of the commons” effect in which each given author’s desire to reach the largest available audience crowds out every other author’s efforts, while at the same time further demoting the sub-blogs as prime venues, destinations, or “homes.” (I can’t be the only one who’s repeatedly clicked on “HOME” at a sub-blog, wrongly expecting to be taken to the League, even with that oversized “RETURN TO…” link right next to it.) Other features that a stand-alone blog would afford the blogger – in relation to both aesthetics and functionality – appear to be unavailable, further de-valuing the sub-blog for the blogger.

A Sub-Blog’s Home Page

Under the networked/polyvocal approach, the sub-blogs would be better explained and integrated within the main and additional pages, but, as or more important, they would also be encouraged and helped to diversify aesthetically – with customized graphics, fonts, colors, and layouts; lower-profile or radically reduced League branding; and enhanced functionality. Much else would follow naturally from simple or seemingly minor alterations and emendations, as the newly diversified blogs could be allowed to re-vitalize the site, eventually allowing the front page to be less disruptively re-branded and re-addressed, or simply retired. In other words, while this evolutionary process was under way, especially at first, many users would hardly notice any changes: The League as convoked on the main page would not be forced to do anything it was not ready for. That the effect would also be to answer all ethnic, gender, and economic diversity questions in any particular time frame cannot be assumed, but at least the presentation and incentives would be substantially re-aligned in that direction.

My initial use of political-historical analogies – spheres of influence vs. global imperialism – was not accidental, nor was it intended merely to be illustrative. The design of a site covering contemporary politics and culture will inevitably embody or be transparent to its underlying political philosophy and concrete identity. I think the League should implement a decentralized, open, organically developing polyvocal-dialogical concept because the League is, perhaps above all, a decentralized, open, organically developing polyvocal-dialogical enterprise.

The approach I’m recommending would require some overall guidance, based on a much more detailed consideration than I have attempted here, but it would not require a single, all-or-nothing effort at any particular phase. Much might depend on the sophistication, capacities, and enthusiasm of individual sub-bloggers, but each blog would remain “small enough to fail” without doing much harm to the larger enterprise. On the other hand, any particular sub-blog or even sub-network of sub-blogs could end up growing far beyond the current limits of the League. The result could convey the Gentlemen’s characteristic commitment to liberty and human scale, and indeed to diversity, the latter being something that the League has, in fact, thusfar been extraordinarily successful in achieving and sustaining on the level of ideology, if much less so in other ways.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins