Styles of referencing

When considering any problem, one cannot avoid links to what other people have done on the subject. This is a normal way of drawing one's own ideas into a common cultural context, which is necessary for mutual understanding. People do not merely tell each other what they think, but also supply their partners with the reference points allowing them to incorporate a new set of ideas into their personal picture of the world in an easier way.

Nobody can have read and learned everything. Luckily, this is not required for productive thinking, and the rediscovery of something that has already been many times discovered by somebody else is a natural mechanism of human development (like children's discovering the world for themselves). The humanity is inhomogeneous, and different social groups have different cultural scope: what may seem well known and self-understood in one group may be quite exotic in another. Therefore, referencing may be a means of bridging these gaps and promoting communication between the people.

Browsing conceptual links may also be useful to get more control over one's own reflection. For example, if I see that somebody acts my way, I may be driven to get closer acquainted with that person, and possibly borrow some interesting ideas. Inversely, if I notice a coincidence with someone I don't like, it may serve as either an indication of a lack of consistency in my thoughts, or a clue to my reassessment of another.

Consequently, the involvement of references into conversation may be natural, desirable and productive. However, to be of any use, this referencing is to be properly conditioned. Thus, if a name is just mentioned without enough indications of its relevance to the subject, it may most likely be in vain. Many scientific publications suffer of this fault, their authors trying to refer to as much people as possible, just "for completeness". In part, such an attitude is often provoked by the traditional style of "academic" journals, where the assessment of submissions may largely depend on the list of references. There also occur oral conversations of that kind, when the partners compete in pronouncing more names, rather than talk the theme.

Another kind of bad-style referencing is the "abusive" usage of the names, which are applied to the partner as abstract labels, without much concern about clarity and rationality. What use may be of claiming somebody Wittgensteinian? To specify which side of that person should be associated with which part of Wittgenstein's heritage, one will have to explicitly formulate one's point of view - thus eliminating the very necessity to recall Wittgenstein. The only actual meaning of such labeling may be: "I don't like you."

One more case is overquoting. The references may be quite relevant, and the links to the subject of discussion well traced, - but there is always a "critical mass" of the literature involved, after which there is no need in any more samples. If a statement has been supported by enough reference material, it needs no further accumulation of possible connections.

I conclude that a good style of referencing should combine adequacy, friendliness and moderateness, so that the partners could enjoy their conversation and help each other in establishing their personal links to the world.

See also: Referencing and Identification.