What is it about the hallowed halls of Academia that seems so... ridiculously academic? Here I don't mean learned (by which I really mean well-read), though of course all the professors are. I also don't mean smart, because the assumption that Ivy League prof's are bright is neither a myth nor a surprise. What I'm grappling with is the extreme specialization within academia of questions which are of great interest and importance to other academics, but which wander well outside the conceptuality (or practical usefulness) of everyday people.I won't go so far as to suggest that such nuanced issues as the theory of history, or even the theory of theoretical thought are without value (as I'm sure many non-academics would insist), but I'm still new enough to the Academy to feel awkward accepting these mental gymnastics as a goal unto themselves.
The theory of all this... theory, is that it is important, incredibly important, but perhaps not to the everyday man. Instead, the relevance of these deep and probing issues is to guide the semi-academic, the people who interact with both academic materials and everyday issues. They aren't expected to advance academics, nor to do practical things, but they are the ones who join the two independent worlds together through advising, etc. Sure, this is a small group of people, but the point is that they're the influential ones.
As for the Academics, they pursue academic questions out of curiousity and a lack of satisfactory answers. That their solutions, or more often new questions, result in improved understanding of practical issues by the semi-academic is of little if any consequence to the academic, even though it is very important to the larger society as a whole. Essentially, this is how individual brilliance/intellect becomes social progress.
SO, here I am, descending into academia and absolutely SQUIRMING at the process. Since I represent about 1 of the 30 people in my particular program, all of my classes are full of students from other programs. Some of them are very academic (Language & Culture, Philology, etc.) while others are shockingly practical (International Security, Business Economics). But so far all of my classes have had one thing in common: Feminists.
Now let me be clear, these aren't feminists in the 1960s conception of the term. They bear neither the scars of "liberated" personal appearance nor the benefits of a righteous cause. I'm talking about proponents of Feminists Analysis, put simply that everything worth studying should be studied from a "feminist" perspective. The argument is that every other structure of analysis is inherently masculine, and so this academic counter-point should have equal weight in every course.
I'm not questioning the validity of Feminist Analysis, nor its unique ability to provide insight on certain issues. We're studying Iraqi Literature, for example, and the contributions of women authors. Yep, Feminist approach is going to be very helpful there. We're studying modernization of traditional societies in Turkey and Iran. I'll bet the emergence of feminism will be of interest there too. But where is a "woman's perspective" different than a man's on a subject like text vs context in classical readings? How will it help us to view the works of Machiavelli through a feminist lens?
I'm a young academic, so I guess I'll figure this all out soon, but for now I'm just annoyed. Even the classes where "Feminism" is a formal part of the course curriculum, someone (yes, always a woman) has inevitably raised her hand and asked the professor if we shouldn't "give greater consideration to the Feminist Perspective on the material." Sister, your revolution started 40 years ago. That means the prof's you're dealing with now are the ones who accepted or even promoted the relevance of Feminist thought, not the oppressing establishment. If it's relevant to the material to which they've devoted their life, I think they'll include it.
So Chill.
On a structural note, I believe this blog has now exceeded the mission of it's title. With the new apartment established and a sedentary life slowly coming together in New York, I think it's fair to assert that I am no longer "On the Lamb" except by the most metaphorical of stretches. I do plan to keep blogging about life in New York, Columbia, side adventures, and other not-so-deep thoughts, but I'm stuck on one key issue: a title. And without a title, how can I start a new blog?
So now it's on you. Please post your suggestions and help me bypass the current mental block.
Thanks.
Weber (on the fence)
2 comments:
Weber in the City
Weber in the World
Weber in the Apple
World Wide Weber
Weber of Columbia
I really appreciated this point, since it relates to the reason why I was disgusted with my PhD program. In my case, I found myself having to bite through my tongue while listening to endless babbling about Marxist Literary Theory and various modes of Post-Colonial Theory that seemed completely as stagnant as pothole water. The problem with much of this navel-gazing theorizing is that it usually ends up descending into arguments over the semantics of the means of communication and in so doing manages to completely obscure the subject of the communication. David Mamet's Oleanna seemed quaint to me until I was in a situation where I wanted to pick up a chair and bash someone's head in during a class.
The lenses of theory sometimes help formulate ideas, but if you keep those lenses on too long you lose all sense of reality. Not everything fits into the theoretical models--and sometimes keeping those theory lenses on will prevent the viewer from seeing what's going on.
The problem is that in academia you will be judged by your ability to master the language of theory--more properly, the jargon of theory. If you can successfully employ the lingo then you will make it through the academic hoops. If you can do that and not end up buying into the self-importance of the jargon, then you will have my respect. Okay, you already have my respect, but you'll get an extra bonus point of respect.
This, yet again, reminds me of how psychology is different from other disciplines. In everything we do, they emphasize how it can be applied. In the introductions to papers on theory, there's always a large section explaining how this will ultimately Help People.
...This, compared to say, physics, where the papers are like "Duuuude, we thought it would be REALLY COOL if we took this element and then, like brought it down close to absolute zero, and then blast it with x-rays. And it was!!"
I'm pretty awful with names, so I can't help you on that front, so I'll just wish you luck.
Post a Comment