This is nothing like the world you know. Which makes you think: the world you know is a very narrow one. Why is it that the words of academics ring hollow, sound contrived, fake, unrealistic?
In economics one of the reasons for the dullness and academic academic discussions is that the people walking through the gates have no experience of life whatsoever. The academy will attract nerds, losers, social misfits, wankers, berks, people unable to communicate with other human beings at a human level. As if to say: the life of the mind has nothing to do with emotional intelligence or sociality. The structure of the Ph.D also has the result of focusing on small problems and technicalities. Studying such an isolated issue in depth doesn't really lead to depth. But it's also partly down to the way the discipline has evolved, becoming more mathematical, esoteric, ahistorical, and abstract. This implies less understanding of the history of ideas as well as the relation between ideas and ideology and politics. It also means there is less discussion across disciplines which might have led to a more relaxed and open atmosphere. The third factor is pressure: the pressure to publish means writing in a particular way, for a particular audience. Academics, by and large, write for one another.
"Critical thinking". No-one quite knows what it is but we've been-irony of ironies-been brainwashed into believing that we must all be critical!
The university as a refuge, as a place that is free from commercial interests and the gaze of the philistines. Which isn't necessarily true, of course. The uncomfortable question: to what extent does the university reinforce the dominant trends in modern society? Universities have always been elitist but, more to the point, they've always embodied this division between "knowledge" and "life". The university helps in debunking, de-mystifying and alienating. It helps in encouraging the fashionable idea that "everything is relative" and the very notion that ideas are "fashionable". And when all is said and done: many of the people at the university are thick as swans.
The problem with criticizing the university is that it opens the doors to the barbarians and fundamentalists who would do away with books, openness and learning. so, one must tread carefully here.
But universities are also full of 'gamers', people who understand what the game is from the beginning: publish, get on the conference circuit, write something trendy, pull the research grants in, dumb down to the students with videos nod and wink to those who have some power. It is also full of mindless bureaucrats who face no accountability.
What is the difference between an intellectual and an academic?
No comments:
Post a Comment