What is "intelligent blogging"? Kameron Hurley inspired me to further examine this idea when I read "Thoughts on Intelligent Blogging" at her blog. Here I take a personal and cultural view, with a nod to events at the recent BlogHer conference.

I found Hurley's piece puzzling because, while it's titled "Thoughts on Intelligent Blogging", it doesn't explicitly state what "intelligent blogging" might look like. She seems to set up witty, argumentative analysis as "intelligent blogging" and brief, angry blogging (especially of the feminist kind) as "negative" "reactionary", and, by implication, unintelligent. I have some problems with this, but first I want to examine the idea of "intelligent blogging", and the implications of this as a guiding standard for my own blog.

So, what is "intelligent blogging"?

• Is it similar to what we consider intelligent on printed paper (say, in books and academic papers)?
• Is it identical to what we deem to be intelligent on paper, but with the addition of embedded links?
• Is linking intelligent? Is more linking more intelligent?
• Are intelligent posts longer? Or shorter?
• Does intelligent blogging use a cool, dispassionate tone?
• Does it strive to show intimate knowledge of an opposing argument, to prove that the blogger is writing from a position of credible knowledge on a subject?
• Does it seek to be "balanced" and "objective"? Is that more intelligent?
• Do intelligent bloggers revisit topics? Or do they deal with an issue and then move on?
• Does limiting yourself to just one subject (e.g., feminism) mean you are limited person, and therefore not intelligent? Do you have to present yourself as a well-rounded blogger in order to gain credibility with your readers?
• Do the really intelligent people blog, while the marginal thinkers use LiveJournal?
• Can there be spelling mistakes in intelligent blogging, or does this undermine all the intelligence going on?
• Is an intricate, laborious post that the blogger obviously had to take some time to research and write more intelligent than a short, incisive post fired off from a place of anger? Is anger some sort of acid that eats away all intelligent writing?

Okay, so some of those questions are tongue-in-cheek - but some are earnest. Should we all be striving towards "intelligent blogging?" I thought the idea behind blogging was that it allowed individual expression and encouraged experimentation, and that (here's the best part) there were no rules. Striving towards one standard - in this case, the culturally defined concept of "intelligence" - would result in one bland, monolithic directory of blogs - and that doesn't sound very fun to me. Some of the best posts are by authors not necessarily concerned with presenting a consistently intelligent blogger personae.

Middle-class Mania for "Intelligence"

Striving towards intelligent blogging usually means using an academic model of intelligence as a template. I've used that template in my own blog. Using an academic template, while it may have worked in an academic setting, can limit expression on the internet, especially in blocs, and marginalize those who haven't mastered the guiding rules of academic writing. If that kind of intelligence is used as a yardstick, white middle-class voices get lauded as "intelligent bloggers", while non-college educated, non-white voices get largely ignored.

In other words: those who define and reward intelligence are the ones already in power.

Patriarchy, anyone?

In the 21st century, intelligence is still gendered as "male", and intelligence in women still jeopardizes their femininity. The academic world is rooted in male privilege and glorification of male thought, although that is changing. Do I really want my blog strings pulled by this conservative "knowledge"-producing factory? The same institution that was highly resistant to mixing personal issues into theses, academic presentations, and essays? Even though, for most people, personal motivations drive them toward certain areas of study?

Okay, so I'm going to break down here and do something terribly academic: quote someone at length who is generally recognized as having attained some knowledge and authority, in order to legitimize and give weight to My Assertions. Typical of my blog reading patterns, though, I didn't find these quotes as a result of diligent research; no, I stumbled upon this through fairly arbitrary clicking. In the comments section to a post at the Blogher website, Melanie McBride (aka Chandrasutra) writes, "The main thing we have to watch out for is thinking and evaluating blogs according to older models - media models mostly." I would add "academic models" to that. She goes on:

"- blog content is blog content:

not news content, not journalism, not anything else. therefore it shouldn't be measured against old media. we're not trying to be journalists, we're not looking to speak for *everyone* and many of us are not looking to *cover* all sides. just our own voice, our own perspective and that's it."

I read this and am mentally adding "not academic" (although academics certainly blog, and use blogs to present their thesis-writing struggles and completed works). In the same comment, McBride also notes:

"- 'personal' isn't a dirty word:

we need to resist the old media's (and indeed a patriarchal sexist paradigm) contention that the 'subjective' or 'personal' view has less value that a so-called 'objective' (if there even was such a thing) or 'authoritative' view. the personal IS political. blogging is the first time in history of information when ordinary people have the opportunity to join the larger discussion of ideas and culture. in the past, having a voice and the means to broadcast that voice was the domain of the powerful, the elite or those otherwise *authorised* to have opinions - usually by their privilege."

Sour Duck: Intelligent Bird or Stupid Fowl?

Basically, this post is an attempt to dismantle my own loyalty to the concept of "intelligent blogging", as I find it's linked to a definition of intelligence that I no longer subscribe to. If I'm constantly trying to prove my intelligence at this blog, while it may raise the level of my writing, it will also inhibit many posts because I'm afraid of looking the fool. There's one post that's been sitting in my drafts folder for so long now, I fear if I don't publish it now I never will; I'm worried it contains some glaring oversight that someone will pick up on.

Perhaps my "Sour Duck" description should read "Even intelligence is political." Or, why not cut the cord completely? "Intelligence: it's overrated."

(All emphases in quoted text by Sour Duck.)