Hmmm. I’m in a quandary. I received a galley copy of The Cult of the Amateur from a friend who attended the TED conference, and my open mind is in question.

The book is a screed of Web 2.0 and the values it promotes (provokes?) including: participatory online culture, social networking, self-published contribution to bodies of knowledge, wiki-ism, and my two favorite “ations”: democratization and amateurization.

I’m a firm believer that these social movements contribute to good. But author Andrew Keen’s philosophy is that these phenomenon are striking at the heart of our most valued cultural institutions — “robbing our artists, authors, journalists and musicians of their livelihood” and “turning truth into a commodity to be bought, sold, packaged and reinvented.”

So…to read or not to read?

I generally try to err on the side of reading a lot and being open to understanding the alternate point of view. When I did a deep dive into the web ring of pro-life web sites, I was both shocked and moved by the emotion and fervor of those who held beliefs so far from my own, and I did feel compassion and empathy for the stories I read. But rather than convince me, it strengthened my own resolve in my beliefs. I felt the rhetoric to be aggressive and fear-based, not open to personal choice and situational context.

Now I’m up against it again, and frankly, I wonder if I have the mental space to openly welcome the arguments against things I hold dear. And yet, if the unexamined life is not worth living, is the unquestioned philosophy not worth holding?

I don’t know. But, with a crowbar and a smile, I think I’ll dip into it a bit. Here’s my agreement:

1. I will read it and when I encounter concepts that are different from my own beliefs, I will examine why I disagree. What makes me think that my beliefs are better? What information supports this?
2. I will read it and if the arguments are sound and the research solid, I will be open to changing my mind about what I think and why. Are my arguments sound and my research solid? How do I substantiate them?
3. I will agree to disagree, and listen openly to the concepts and ideas presented. Does the author thoughtfully examine differing ideas and are these treated with respect or not?
4. I will read. But if I every feel that ideas are under attack without full examination, I will work to tease out the weapon: is it lack of respect? fundamental disagreement? disdain? contempt? How is this communicated? Do my communications ever bear these ills?

Hand me a crowbar and stay tuned. I’m jumping in.