Challenging the status quo without losing yourself
I have been in the situation where I felt I needed to challenge the conventional wisdom about a sword tradition and there are good ways and bad ways to tackle that problem.
Beware when fighting monsters that you don’t become one yourself.
First:
In my opinion, it is most effective to concentrate on the **work** instead of the **person** in the counterargument. If you have a position there’s a decent chance we want to hear it, hell, we need to hear it if the position has merit.
However, not all positions are good and we have seen plenty of half-baked nonsense in our time. Polish up your argument into its best form, have a friend read it for tone and clarity, and set it out there without assigning intention or motivations to the other researcher or the original author (unless the source definitively tells you, “By this I mean X, Y, Z…”)
Good work can be made better by critical process. I’ve been wrong and errors in my work have been fixed by others. (“There is no such thing as a transversal step backwards.” Oops. Fixed it.) It is not wonderful to be wrong, but I would rather see my stuff fixed than propagate errors.
As an aside, translation is an art. The lovely Dr. Curtis did a presentation on a single passage from Don Quixote and how the translation style changed the outcome of each piece. That’s expected. Multiple translations in different styles is a feature. I think we all want access to the different insights, tone, and flavor that each translator brings to the text. If you want to disagree with a translation it is probably about choices made. You could say, “By making this choice, the emphasis on these keys aspects is missing. Or, “This choice loses this context which I think is essential.” That’s constructive and potentially useful to the neutral observer.
Second:
Take care of yourself first. When you form a critical position, how you do that will make a lasting impression on the people reading your argument. When you use ad hominem attacks, assign nefarious intention, or imply fraud you have gone beyond academic discourse into personal grudges. At that point you’re going to see friends and allies rally to defend the character of the original researcher. Once that starts it can be very difficult, even if you are absolutely correct, to have a productive discussion.
There are ways to challenge existing work without compromising your personal reputation. Sometimes it’s absolutely necessary to do this to foster growth in the community and to correct misconceptions. Maybe that necessary conflict is being driven by you and your work. I’ll be the first to admit that doing this well isn’t easy but if you can thread that needle you’re going to be an asset the community will continue to draw upon going forward.
Consider having a friend read your argument to pull out things with loaded words like “refused”, “obviously”, “clearly”, “ignores”, “deluded”, “recklessly”, and so on. What I want as a reader is the core of your argument presented in its best form. I can make decisions about the personal motivations on my own.
For example,
- I think there is real value in considering this alternative which I think better reflects X,Y,Z…
- By considering how the images were chosen we can gain insight into X,Y,Z…
- I think this is an error based on this <citation>. Based on that consider this alternative which allows us to…
Each of those methods helps the reader understand there is potential value in at least considering your position. By buttressing the argument with citations and avoiding loaded language you open up some space in the dialogue and you preserve and protect yourself by avoiding self-inflicted wounds.
Third:
Don’t be an authority and instead be a resource. I’ve seen multiple examples of individuals trying to be an authority (Maestro-cop to the universe) and their work collapses underneath them as their attempt to assert authority is outpaced by the increased knowledge of the growing community. Having had the benefit of watching these implosions I made a commitment to myself not to walk down the same road.
By refusing to own the tradition but rather trying to build and restore it, I permit myself the necessary space to be wrong and correct the work as I gather new evidence.
Finally:
If you have done enough research to disagree with an established interpretation, you have value whether you are right or wrong. By encouraging you to argue well, I hope to preserve your place in the community for my own selfish reasons. Critical feedback and challenging of existing work is essential to what we do. I hope you’ve got something useful and can present your work effectively.