Citation is an Act of Creation
Citation is an act of creation, a shaping force that determines the trajectory, richness, and vitality of a discourse. More than mere academic protocol or formality, the act of exploring into more far-flung social milieus and linking those perspectives back into the discourse literally shapes what it is possible to say and who is considered a salient voice in the consortium.
This truth resonates especially in the realms of philosophy, anthropology, art, and sociology, where the nuanced interplay of ideas forms the heart of any conversation. Much like a healthy brain enriched by a dense web of interconnections, a robust discourse thrives on the diverse links created through citation.
In the human brain, the strength and vitality lie in the density of its interconnections. Aging and diseases like dementia erode these connections, leading to a loss of function and vitality. Similarly, a consortium can become impoverished when its discourse focuses too heavily on a select few “central figures,” much like a brain losing its interconnectivity.
These central figures, often lauded for their substantial contributions, become the recurring touchstones in the discourse. The unintended consequence is a discourse that revolves around these figures, their ideas forming an “invisible box” that defines the boundaries of that conversation, corralling interlocutors into narrow pathways of what is possible to say.
A vibrant discourse is characterized by a broad spectrum of citations. Each citation weaves a new thread into the discourse’s tapestry, enhancing its complexity and adaptability. When we cite thinkers from various backgrounds, identities, and perspectives, we enrich our discourse, similar to how a brain’s resilience is enhanced by maintaining a rich network of interconnections.
A flagging discourse can be recognized by its tendency to repel rather than attract new thinkers, and accordingly, its relative inability to generate enough novelty needed to solve the harder problems that the consortium is interested in. A neglected brain operates much the same way: all problems feels like wicked problems, and habits of thought that no longer serve a purpose seem fully unassailable.
The “invisible box” phenomenon actively exacerbates the lack of diversity within a group or community. This lack of diversity is a concern often raised within various thought communities, with many questioning why their demographic makeup seems so homogenous despite their best efforts. The answer, in part, can be traced back to the restricted range of references that dominates their discourse.
When a group predominantly cites a select few, they unconsciously reinforce a certain archetype of a ‘thinker’ or ‘contributor’. This can inadvertently create an environment that feels exclusive to those who do not fit the archetype. However, by intentionally reaching beyond this “invisible box” and citing a diverse range of thinkers, we create a more welcoming space, much like a healthy brain that continues to form new connections and adapt.
Therefore, citation is not only an act of intellectual creation but also a practice of community building. It has the power to shape not just the content of our conversations but also the composition of our communities. It determines whether our discourse will resemble a vibrant, well-connected brain, or one that’s aging, losing its connections and vitality.
Let us remember that each citation we make is an act of creation, an opportunity to redefine the conversation and broaden its horizons. By intentionally curating a wider array of citations, we can ensure that our discourses remain dynamic, inclusive, and ever-evolving, truly reflecting the diverse intellectual landscape we inhabit, maximizing potential for serendipity and benevolent mutation, and enhancing the flow of insights over far more comprehensive datasets.
Composed purposefully without citations. Some writing fleshed out by ChatGPT.
