1066 & Arthur Rimbaud

22 02 2008

My group of friends and I used to have a bourgie (see #2) quiz we made up to see if/how bourgie one was. I don’t recall all of the questions on said quiz but I do remember one fairly well. The idea was to say the phrase, with some gesticulation, “It has a certain, how the French say, I don’t know what,” and if one got that the phrase was a joke, they were bourgie. Further, if one got it because they thought the phrase ‘je ne sais quoi’ could be used, they might be bourgie. But if they laughed because they knew the humour arose from a double entendre, they were bourgie bourg, or bourgcore. (Of course the joke is a double entendre. Je ne sais quoi literally means, “I don’t know what.”)
The other questions were of the same ilk. Questions about useless, pretentious (there may be an argument made that all pretentious knowledge is useless) knowledge that no one knows unless they have had all their basic needs met for the duration of their lives. It wasn’t mean spirited or elitist, believe it or not, just a way to probe each other’s depths of bourgitude. The ironic part was that to be bourgie was not cool, but to think of a question that would show someone’s bourgitude was. Is that ironic or just hypocritical? Anyway, I thought of this when thinking about reference interviews in one of Lester’s papers on Information Behaviour Systems.

A lot of the systems we have been studying have accounted for affective/cultural/geographic/temporal effects on information behaviour. I think it may be interesting to take the reference interview sociologically or social psychology-ly. That is, look for human dispensations of reference interviews between people in everyday settings, social settings, and how patterns may arise within cohort groups. I am familiar with the research that has been done in the area I am describing, but I do not recall any that has approached the “getting to know” aspect of human interaction as a reference interview.

PS, here’s an update on the funding for the presidential race frontrunners with the bold being Obama and the italic being McCain. Six of the top ten contributors to each campaign were the same. Those are reprinted here.

Citigroup Inc $221,578
Citigroup Inc $153,362

Credit Suisse Group $118,250
Credit Suisse Group $65,000

Goldman Sachs $421,763
Goldman Sachs $85,252

JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
JP Morgan Chase & Co $65,485

Lehman Brothers $250,630
Lehman Brothers $63,450

Morgan Stanley $155,196
Morgan Stanley $55,701




2 responses

22 02 2008

Obviously off-topic for me, but I’m wondering whether you might also want to look at Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” in this context. It does provide an interesting alternative to the “reference transaction” interaction, although from a quite different perspective from the ones you mention!

22 02 2008

Martin Buber is truly a mensch. I have read “I & Though,” though it was many moons ago and from an existential (ahh, the folly of youth) perspective. I will give it another reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: