I have a very different attitude about blogging.

I blog and comment on blogs because I want to influence what people think, and either change their minds about something, or reinforce some of the convictions they already have.  Writing things on blogs is for me a purely utilitarian act that I see as part of the democratic political process, like standing up and making a comment at a town meeting or writing a traditional letter to an editor.  Certainly, my ability to influence what people think is highly limited, and restricted to a relatively small circle.  That’s OK, because the political process is always the aggregate of a large number of small local acts.

I personally don’t care about “creating” anything, other than creating conviction in the minds of people who might happen to read what I write.  I don’t read many of the more creative blogs, here or elsewhere.   If I see that a blog post extends beyond four or five paragraphs, I am strongly disinclined to even start reading it.  Similarly, I turn away from blogs which start off with elaborate writerly conceits or otherwise suggest by their form or content that they are stories or pieces of creative writing rather than straightforward political discourse.   I’m not much interested in reading about people’s life stories or exposing myself to their sentimental outpourings, their unresolved conflicts with their fathers, their compulsive search for love and approval or their excurses into self-directed public therapy.

My background is in academic philosophy.  But I rarely blog about philosophy, because I don’t think the blog format is a particularly effective one for raising and discussing philosophical questions with the level of care and logical precession they require.

I certainly don’t write any of this political stuff for posterity.  It’s all written in the moment for the demands of the moment, and I assume that 99.9% of the millions of words I have written since 2003 or 2004 are lost forever, like most of the other events in our lives.

I generally prefer to enter discussions that have already been started, rather than start a new one myself.  But I do some of each.

I prefer to stick with the progressive and moderate folks who hang out on the Democratic-leaning blogs, because they are the only ones open to being persuaded by anything I might say.  I don’t have any demonstrated ability to get a conservative wingnut to stop being a conservative wingnut, so I don’t bother.   And I also don’t have a masochistic desire to expose myself more than is absolutely necessary to their lunatic ravings.

"Beauty."

Yes.

Complete agreement.

And congrats for having the courage to say it out loud.

Beauty.

Why blog? It is a good question, and I would say I blog because writing has always been part of what I love, since I was a small child in elementary school. And although I love politics, blogging only about politics only represents a tiny part of life so I love to blog about everything I find interesting or fun. Life is so much more than just politics.

Here is where I will change the subject slightly to why women leave blogging communities, and I am sorry it if is too off topic or isn't in the vein of what you've written feel free to delete my entire comment. This is just a part of a blog I've been working on for my own blog as I move from DAG to my own place. I believe women abandon blogging communities because of endless confrontation and the bully posse(s) that form to keep commenters and bloggers in line. And it seems where ever we go, those type of commenters and bloggers take over blogging communities, so we abandon those places, because they don't seek to foster discussion, they seek to remove differing opinions, the seek to limit differing modes of communication, they seek to limit ideas.   We then form our own communities, like IRL, our model doesn't require everyone hold the same view on certain subjects but that promotes a model of conversation, one not based entirely on anger,  because our lives are not consumed by anger. We leave because the formed virtual posse chases us away, we flee for other places that foster camaraderie and is not a competition where the majority of commenters have gathered to crush any kind of discussion they disapprove. We seek a circle of ideas, that we can consider and utilize, because our solutions are always found in the ideas of many.

 As women, we live to communicate with one another, but we do not live for endless confrontation.  This expanding blog war doesn't include us, we don't live our lives in an endless mode of confrontation, we live in a world of compromise.  Most blogging communities thrive off anger and resentment. And if we don't buy into that anger and resentment we are literally bullied off the blogs, mostly by men, but certainly there are women who join in on the process.

Our lives, as women, require we leave our anger behind, to search for the best compromise that benefits humanity to preserve humanity. So we leave blogging communities behind, we move on to create those places ourselves. We accept that we can never convince the very angry or the virtual posse that their anger inhibits progress, so we gather together elsewhere, hoping to softly and quietly affect those around us. When the bullies take over, we simply disappear.  So in that we are defeated in our goal of making society as a whole better, because we can't even get a blogging community that endless confrontation inhibits our societal goals. We realize our differing approaches,which many find unacceptable, must be fostered elsewhere.

As I move slowly away from DAG on to create my own space, I want to say thank you to Genghis and AMan. It's been fun, mostly,  and I thank you for offering me a space to learn about this thing called blogging, It offers a certain amount of personal growth when one writes and works through ones thoughts. It is like therapy, without the cost.

Great piece, A-Man.  One reason I do this is that I like to fight.  Seriously.  We humans are hard-wired for debate and argument and, unfortunately for our politics, using parliamentary techniques and all manner of chicanery to get our way.  I know I have a combative instinct and it's frankly led me into some very silly Internet discussions as well as some very interesting ones.  So I blog to stay in the argument.

This will fit in perfectly for my next blog post, to be titled "Why We Blog About 'Why We Blog?'?"

Seriously, tho, good post.

Like almost any worthwhile activity, there is no single reason to blog, and there need not be any preeminent reason. I blog for the pleasure of creation, the joy of lining up a few half-decent words, the satisfaction of constructing a solid argument, the gratification a well-placed jab, the thrill of applause, the expression of inner turmoil, the fantasy of influencing people, the intensive education every article demands, the dream of being discovered, my own amusement, posterity, beauty, truth, the adoration of the ladies, and the desire to keep slavemaster Wolfrum off my ass. Not necessarily in that order.

Great blog Articleman.  Wish I had a little more time to respond.  But since I don't I came across an article by Holly White - Practicing Camus: the art of engagement.  She quotes Camus which I think is aligned with what you are saying:

The historical spirit and the artist both want to remake the world. But the artist, through an obligation of his nature, knows his limits, which the historical spirit fails to recognize. This is why the latter's aim is tyranny whereas the former's passion is freedom. All those who are struggling today are ultimately fighting for beauty.

Another way of phrasing why we blog is that it a means of engagement, and thus empowerment. I thought the end of this article has a lot to say for those who reflect on their blogging:

Camus's vision of engagement rested on friendship, moments of beauty, and trust in the creative process. Camus never painted a bright future for humanity. He consistently tangled his characters in scenes of death and argued that humans were caught in a world indifferent to their concerns. He foresaw no end to the rebellion against nihilism and totality.

But Camus did not let the isolated struggle of the individual define his approach to engagement. The interview that began with the artist and man on the street wandering in darkness did not end there. He continues, explaining that in this "exhausting adventure" of artistic and political engagement, there is more to anchor him than struggle alone. In his characteristic florid style, Camus offers a formula of sorts for the endeavor of engaged living:

The artist can only draw help from others, and, like anyone else, he will get help from pleasure, from forgetting, and also from friendship and admiration. And, like anyone else, he will get help from hope. In my case, I have always drawn my hope from idea of  fecundity... Like many men today, I am tired of criticism, of disparagement, of spitefulness--of nihilism, in short. It is essential to condemn what must be condemned, but swiftly and firmly. On the other hand, one should praise at length what still deserves to be praised. After all, that is why I am an artist, because even the work that negates still affirms something and does homage to the wretched and magnificent life that is ours.

Writing near the end of his life, Camus proclaimed "Let us rejoice." His cheer was for having endured tyranny, oppression, and suffering in its many forms and "being faced with cruel truths," lived to see what threatens human freedom. His cheer was for artists and individuals alike who had seen the "destitutions, prisons and bloodshed" of their times and, having kept this vision in mind, were willing to create in patient defiance of their situations. Camus says "yes" and "no" to our situation. He challenges us to the darkness, to stand within it, in the thick of it. And he calls us to bear witness to the justice and beauty of this world that guides us into that unknown future.

The Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite movies as well.  And it is on the idiot box 24/7, in just about any metro region, on some cable channel, it seems.  

I relate to what you wrote about rejecting limits others place upon me, although I don't make it my business to push back on them unless the context makes that a byproduct of something I need to be doing anyway.  I am low-key and generally mild-mannered, more of a steady Eddie type when not barking at our kids, and often surprise people who don't know me well with my willfulness.  A former boss who had that experience with me told me that I have a strong personality, clearly surprised herself at having come to that perception.  I hadn't thought about it that way.

Your post prompts in me the thought that the prison in the Shawshank Redemption could be seen as a metaphor for either the imposition of limits upon us by others, or of life itself.  The movie is about how we respond to limits, whether they be physical limits, or capabilities limits placed upon us by others (which I've experienced as well in ways your post reminded me of, maybe a little revenge of the nerds stuff going on with each of us?), or capabilities limits placed upon us by ourselves.

I blog because it gives me a forum to be heard. I like to think that my perspective as a former conservative repub turned compassionate liberal is of interest to some out there who don't believe people can grow and change even in their later years.

I also think I have a pretty interesting story to tell, and really what it boils down to is ego. Anyone who wants to put their feelings out there thinks they have something to say that is worthy of being heard.

Ultimately, we blog because we can. (Or think we can, which is good enough for internet work.) We've each discovered we have a written voice, every bit as authentic and personal as the one we speak with. It's a talent, rarer than it seems. And like an ability to sing, draw, or dance, it is a joy to exercise. So we do, because it's fun.

If by sheer chance we're smart, well-read and opinionated, well, that's gravy. The written form permits endless polishing, rephrasing, pausing to check our facts on the google, letting the whole damn thing sit overnight so we can review it through fresh eyes in the morning. And if at that point we realize our basic premise is unpersuasive or fatally flawed -- well, there's the Delete button, and no one's the wiser. Our blog buddies will continue to think we're as clever and wise as the last good thing we posted.

As for those blog buddies, the dagblog collection is a pretty remarkable one, and an actual incentive to post. Most maintain some degree of anonymity, but the recurring cast is small enough that the personalities (and backstories) underlying the avatars shine through convincingly. I don't get the feeling any of us are "gay girls in Damascus." Though we are very cosmopolitan, what with branch offices on four continents.

A big incentive to blog has been dagblog's deliberately lax standards as to topics. It's avoided turning into a political discussion club, much less a Democratic Party cell. We talk politics, of course. But we also share our thoughts about love, commitment, birth, illness and death, travel, movies, music, books, the arts, the media, science, history, sports, toaster purchases and Anthony Weiner's penis. G and A deserve some credit for that, I suspect.

I blog because:  I am tired of speaking with zombies, who have no interest in anything other than the Friday night meat markets.

When ever I try to strike up a conversation with strangers I am told, ‘don’t talk religion or politics”

The blogs give me the opportunity to be who I am, talking about any subject, with anyone who cares to participate.

I am not going to sit my life on the sidelines keeping quiet; blogging is a participation venue.

 It helps shape my opinions on varied issues, as I learn to avoid pitfalls in the way I should respond. When the day arrives I can speak openly about politics or religion, I am less apt to stumble, because I have practiced the art of persuasion.   

I learn of things, the rest of the lemmings don’t value.

How would Handel's Messiah Hallelujah Chorus sound if only one person sung it? It takes more voices with a varying amounts of pitch to capture the essence of the lyrics and music, and the attention of those listening to appreciate the effort. Blogging is the same.

Any blog theme can generate a multitude of voices to be heard, singing both praise and condemnation for others to listen to and appreciate the depth of what the theme addresses.

Brilliant blog about blogging, Aman. My own feeling about blogging falls almost totally in line with yours   I created my first blog ("Ramona's Voices is one of three) when someone showed me how easy it was to produce one with Blogger.  My first was a blog about living the cabin life in the boonies, which I started about five years ago, but once I created my political blog, it sort of fell by the wayside.  I visit it now and then and feed it a few crumbs, but it's no longer first in my heart.

I enjoy blogging more than any other writing I've done, mainly because I'm free to write whatever I want to write at any given moment and when I push the "publish" button it's actually going out into the world for anyone to come across and read.   I am writer, editor, publisher and in complete control of the look and the content.  It's the publishing part that keeps us blogging.  Anybody can write but until now not everyone could get it public.

Your last paragraph citing beauty is what separates bloggers from commenters or commentators, IMO.  The beauty is in the personal, and it infuses most good blogs, giving them the slant that keeps readers coming back.  I think what Dan Kervick is talking about--blogging for the sake of being opinionated without feeling a need to engage his readers--goes against the grain of blogging as I see it.

I love Another Trope's Holly White quote here.  Boy, does it speak to me:

The historical spirit and the artist both want to remake the world. But the artist, through an obligation of his nature, knows his limits, which the historical spirit fails to recognize. This is why the latter's aim is tyranny whereas the former's passion is freedom. All those who are struggling today are ultimately fighting for beauty.

Passion can be so much more than anger or sarcasm, and when the pleas for some semblance of humanity are done right, they can, indeed, be a thing of beauty.  There was a time when men wouldn't or couldn't publicly express their feelings beyond anger or sarcasm, and I love that male bloggers are finding their own kind of liberation in this new medium.

Women have been writing like this for all eternity.  We've kept diaries and journals and have written long letters to family and friends.  We've written poems and sung songs to our children.  We aren't afraid to express our feelings in settings that traditionally exclude men, but I think what's new for most of us is getting into the political arena with the Big Guys. 

Here I'll  say it.  I felt like crying when I read tmccarthy's comment (and no, I won't apologize for feeling like crying) about her need to leave dag and try it on her own because she has a voice (and a good one) that she feels is unheard or unappreciated in what is sometimes a testosterone-fed din.

I am one of two women on the masthead here at dag and I admit there are times when I feel like the intruder in the all-boys club.  But when I read something like this, I think it's possible for all of us, male or female, to be on equal footing when it comes to the importance of our opinions.

We have company for a few days and they're up and around so I have to go, but I just want to say how much I appreciate what you've written here.  I'll sneak back when I can to read the comments again.  So much to chew on..