Democratization of the discipline

[Strong Flat White]

Soxpuppet wrote - back before the general "democratization of the discipline" topic had been derailed by yours truly, the following:

..."dialectic" of opposition is in practice as productive as it is I guess in Jameson's formulation.

Can Sox (or someone who's not burnt out on me, if that's anyone) explain this to me? What is dialectic of opposition, and who is Jameson and what is his formulation?

Back to democratization. I'm not even here.

[GK Chesterton]

http://tinyurl.com/yynke3h

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jameson+dialectic+of+opposition

[diehtc0ke]

Unfortunately I feel like this thread has gone the way of the Chronicle forums.

[GK Chesterton]

Well then, in an effort to reboot:

How far do you think a democratization in the academy is reflective of a broader "democratization" in society? Is the proliferation of top professors at multiple schools a diffusion of talent or an increase in talent (i.e. a spillover-effect of a vastly increased level of interest in subjects that were before 50 years ago not studied, e.g. post-colonial literature, women's studies, queer theory, etc.)

Finally, is this the case for more disciplines than just the humanities? I wonder what effects a growing consensus on neo-liberalism will have on humanity departments; I have heard from a number of professors in German that schools no longer see it as a "productive" thing to teach, and when it gets cut in HS, you see a big drop in college majors. Will English also bear the brunt of an increasing instrumentalization of the liberal arts education?

[Medievalmaniac]

[TANGENT] - Strong White Flat:

If you are interested in concepts of identity - national and individual - and of international conflicts within that arena, then you probably want to look at either early modern literature (+/- the Renaissance, give or take about twenty or thirty or fifty years in either direction dependent upon who you are working with and reading), the literatures of Africa or of India/ British India, or postmodern literature, which is the second half of the twentieth century. Also, you would definitely want to start by immersing yourself in Marxist theory, especially postcolonial and its offshoots, and probably also myth theory and psychoanalytical approaches, such as archetypes and collective consciousness. You can do really interesting things with the concept of nationalism in literature - the effects of the government on the literature/ censorship and media, the role of writers in establishing national identity, foundational cultural myths of identity, the changes and shifts in identity from one generation to the next, postwar identity, insular communities versus colonizing groups in literature, expansion, industrialization, and community in literature, the individual versus the collective identity in literature - really, the field is wide open, and there are really interesting research projects going on over this very thing, especially in comparative literature.

My own graduate thesis was on the collective unconscious and the crafting of national identity in medieval Arthurian texts; I argue that the writers of the Matter of Britain (King Arthur legend) deliberately picked and chose from various sources both real and imagined to construct Arthur as a central figure of Britishness, appealing to certain psychological characteristics over others, that they understood and tapped into the needs of their readers for a strong archetypal figurehead, and that this served as the foundation for the newly emergent Britain's national identity in post-Conquest Anglo-Norman England; through close textual comparison and analysis, I then looked at how the Arthurian legend changed and expanded to fit the needs of each successive generation throughout the Middle Ages in England, without ever actually changing the foundational identifying factors of Arthur the Briton, permitting him to remain as a central myth of national identity while also evolving to fit the needs of the changing country, even through today (there's a reason HRM Charles, Prince of Wales has the full name "Charles Phillip ARTHUR George" - it's to establish his family's right to the throne by association with King Arthur, which by association links them to Henry VII, Richard Lionheart, etc. etc. etc. -all of whom claimed Arthur as kin, despite the fact there is no good, solid evidence of Arthur's ever having existed as such- I have a theory I'm working on concerning this, actually; I contend Arthur is actually historical - but he's not Arthur. Hang in for more details in a forthcoming article! ).

My overall aim through this sort of work is to show that the concept of national identity is a deliberate fabrication in emergent nations that is crafted by writers, adopted by leaders, and ratified by the assent of the people: "Yes, this is what we are and what we stand for" and that, while that concept changes and shifts, it still remains the same fundamental character. If modern countries want to truly get along and create a global community, the first step is to understand this, demystify the myth, accept that many of the baseline differences between countries in terms of ideology and character are deliberately chosen and therefore culturally inherent and not necessarily genetic/racial in nature, and therefore that by accepting this, embracing these cultural myths, but knowing they are just that, and then working from that as a baseline to construct international relationships, we can arrive at a better foundation for international dialogue on some of the most pressing issues of our time. This thesis was particularly ambitious, especially for an MA thesis, because it made use of all three major schools of literary theory - Psychoanalytical, via Jungian psychology and myth theory, Marxist, via postcolonial theory, and Structuralist/Formalist via close reading and analysis of text and language - which makes for a very complicated argument. It also is currently under revision for publication with a well-known academic press...so, there's definitely a lot of interest in this sort of thing.

For beginning reading in terms of the concept of national identity and literature, I'd suggest Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, Thorlac Turville-Petre's England, the Nation, Susan Crane's Insular Romance, and then branch off from their bibliographies into other reading.

[bACK TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED DISCUSSION ALREADY IN PROGRESS]:

Well then, in an effort to reboot:

How far do you think a democratization in the academy is reflective of a broader "democratization" in society? Is the proliferation of top professors at multiple schools a diffusion of talent or an increase in talent (i.e. a spillover-effect of a vastly increased level of interest in subjects that were before 50 years ago not studied, e.g. post-colonial literature, women's studies, queer theory, etc.)

Honestly, I think it's for all of the reasons you have listed above. Certainly, there are so many PhDs that highly-trained students from top programs sometimes don't have an option and go to lesser schools as assistant professors - but when they do, they have to adjust their expectations to fit the demographic of their new post - if you are an Ivy League educated PhD in Queer Theory, and you're teaching at a second-tier state campus, your students may or may not react to your work the way you expect them to - in which case, you either adjust the material to render it more accessible, take the time to really educate them on a higher level, don't bother teaching it except at graduate level, or some combination of the three. In some cases, I think what happens is that through sheer force of will (I AM a queer theorist and you people WILL study this with me even if we are in the middle of nowhere!) a professor can create an interest in the subject matter than didn't exist in his or her school prior. By conferencing, bringing in colleagues, and advertising his or her classes, and through word of mouth, s/he can build a mini-community that expands according to his or her talent, drive and ability. A couple of other new professors in different areas of interest take an interest in how s/he is doing this and begin to look at queer theories within their own disciplines. A couple of discussions turns into an interdisciplinary approach with the sociology department or a cross field approach between the medievalist and the nineteenth century Brit lit scholar; the Italian instructor gets a great idea for a textual/lingual interface between himself and the Dantisti in the English department concerning queer models in the Inferno; they all petition the Dean of Arts and Sciences for a minor or a certificate in queer studies, and since it won't cost the school a dime and it sounds "sexy" the dean agrees - eventually, nowhere State U. becomes known for this bizarrre cross-discipline specialization, which came about because there were several assistant professors, all looking for ways to publish and distinguish themselves, all united under the banner "we will succeed even if we are at X,Y, Z college and not an R1! Tenure for the masses!" It sounds like an academic fantasy or academic science fiction, but this actually does happen (maybe not in queer studies). At my undergraduate institution, there were practically no medieval studies available. My professor is a medievalist. The History department hired a medievalist to replace an outgoing World History generalist. They got together and wham! Bam! They are on their fourth year of a well-received, regional, annual undergraduate conference in medieval studies - the only one in a two hundred mile radius. She has several graduate students coming to work with her specifically because of their introduction to her work through their participation as undergrads in this conference. So, to answer your question - yes, I think it is all three - it's a diffusion of talent, a spillover, and an increase in specializations available.

[wordslinger]

So I was off the forums for a day and fell a bit behind in the convo, but I do have this say on the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy:

Several posters mentioned that it is not so easy to extricate qualitative and quantitative inquiry... what, at the end of the day, is the difference? And that's a valid philosophical criticism. (I'm reading my Derrida right now too.) When we move from the theoretical to the practical (another dichotomy to be excised?), issues of qualitative and quantitative inquiry become tangible. For example, at the institution where I completed my MA, researchers engaging in qualitative inquiry are considered less "serious" or more "sketchy" than quantitative researchers. In the realm of public education, my old stomping ground, studies backed up by "hard, cold statistics" are valued over stories from classrooms.

A more detailed example: Right now, in the public school system in which I teach, teachers are being cut due to budget constraints. To back up the decision to fire teachers rather than try to cut other aspects of the budget, our superintendent is using quantitative studies from Harvard to argue that increased class sizes have no significant impact on student achievement. These quantitative analyses (based on standardized test scores, numbers of students per class, and demographic data) are superseding anecdotal, experiential evidence and the kind of qualitative classroom research that might examine the lived experiences of people and might ask questions like "what is student achievement?"

Pardon me for this tangent, but what I trying to say is that theoretically you can argue that quantitative and qualitative are the same creature. But that theoretical argument is worth contextualizing with the pragmatic ways in which such arguments will be used. That is not to say that qualitative studies could not be used for similar nefarious (value statement!) purposes. But in our current historical time and place, in the public sphere, statistics and quantitative studies have more "weight" than stories, a point that should be considered.

(Thanks to all of you for your contributions to this thread! Fun times!)

[Strong Flat White]

http://tinyurl.com/yynke3h

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...c+of+opposition

Gracias. Interesting.

[Strong Flat White]

Medieval, that was absolutely invaluable, a thousand times thank you. I'll leave it at that and catch you on another appropriate thread. May want to ask you about Owen Glendower in Shakespeare and Welsh national identity. But... another time, another place. Cheers.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

(there's a reason HRM Charles, Prince of Wales has the full name "Charles Phillip ARTHUR George" - it's to establish his family's right to the throne by association with King Arthur, which by association links them to Henry VII, Richard Lionheart, etc. etc. etc. -all of whom claimed Arthur as kin, despite the fact there is no good, solid evidence of Arthur's ever having existed as such- I have a theory I'm working on concerning this, actually; I contend Arthur is actually historical - but he's not Arthur. Hang in for more details in a forthcoming article! ).

MM - saw a documentary not long ago (I think it was BBC) about who Arthur really was - there are a few historical contenders for the role, aren't there? One is actually named Arturius (a general left behind after the withdrawal of Rome from Britain), but others are early kings of pre-Anglo-Saxon invasion - one of them even marched on Rome (however, I don't remember their names at the moment LOL).

Fascinating stuff, your thesis

[callmelilyb]

So I feel like I'm probably off-topic based on the direction this thread has taken, and where it's ended up but I'd still like to make a few (hopefully) succinct comments on issues that were breached earlier in the conversation regarding privilege.

As far as privilege is concerned, I'd argue that true privilege goes far beyond, and much deeper than things like "free time" and unlimited resources. What about the privilege of even knowing from an early age that you'll be going to college, or that graduate school exists, or that it exists as an option for you? What about the privilege of higher education even being part of the paradigm through which you evaluate your life options? Free time, having to work while studying or attending school, having the resources to buy books and apply for school, etc. etc. are all very real disadvantages for lots of people, but they are also quite palpable disadvantages that we can articulate and conceivably do something about. Coming from a family/heritage/background/culture/subculture/socioeconomic status/etc. where education isn't even talked about, let alone valued is a disadvantage that is far less tangible and far more difficult to overcome. While I'd say that there are probably a small percentage of people in damn near every program (including Harvard, Yale, etc.) that come from what we stereotypically view as "disadvantaged" i.e. they worked to put themselves through school, faced hardships, etc. I'd argue that there are very few students in these programs who never even thought they'd go to college in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong here, but....I know that personally, coming from a background where nobody is educated that this was the greatest hurdle for me. I went to college (the local one) out of sheer intellectual curiosity (thanks to God I was born reasonably intelligent and found things like geography and chemistry and literature interesting) and so took random classes here and there with no real goal of becoming "educated" in mind. It wasn't until I did really well in my coursework and met with enthusiasm from professors that I thought about actually getting a college degree. Do you have any idea what it's like to look at your family members (cousins and siblings under 20 with children and without even a high school diploma) and tell them, "No, you're not going to have kids any time soon, you think you'd like to get a PhD." Cue crickets.

The fact is there are lots of reasons outside of being very intelligent and very hardworking that someone won't end up at an Ivy league/top ranked school. I'm not saying that anyone has asserted anything to the contrary but rather that it's important for all of us to keep this in mind. I think we all "know" this, but ya know!

At any rate I'm not sure if this is even useful to anyone but there you have it.

Also, I LOVE LOVE LOVE that someone actually named MY alma mater as the exemplary "opposite" of Yale. GOOOOO Chico State! LMFAO.

[samjones]

So I feel like I'm probably off-topic based on the direction this thread has taken, and where it's ended up but I'd still like to make a few (hopefully) succinct comments on issues that were breached earlier in the conversation regarding privilege.

As far as privilege is concerned, I'd argue that true privilege goes far beyond, and much deeper than things like "free time" and unlimited resources. What about the privilege of even knowing from an early age that you'll be going to college, or that graduate school exists, or that it exists as an option for you? What about the privilege of higher education even being part of the paradigm through which you evaluate your life options? Free time, having to work while studying or attending school, having the resources to buy books and apply for school, etc. etc. are all very real disadvantages for lots of people, but they are also quite palpable disadvantages that we can articulate and conceivably do something about. Coming from a family/heritage/background/culture/subculture/socioeconomic status/etc. where education isn't even talked about, let alone valued is a disadvantage that is far less tangible and far more difficult to overcome. While I'd say that there are probably a small percentage of people in damn near every program (including Harvard, Yale, etc.) that come from what we stereotypically view as "disadvantaged" i.e. they worked to put themselves through school, faced hardships, etc. I'd argue that there are very few students in these programs who never even thought they'd go to college in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong here, but....I know that personally, coming from a background where nobody is educated that this was the greatest hurdle for me. I went to college (the local one) out of sheer intellectual curiosity (thanks to God I was born reasonably intelligent and found things like geography and chemistry and literature interesting) and so took random classes here and there with no real goal of becoming "educated" in mind. It wasn't until I did really well in my coursework and met with enthusiasm from professors that I thought about actually getting a college degree. Do you have any idea what it's like to look at your family members (cousins and siblings under 20 with children and without even a high school diploma) and tell them, "No, you're not going to have kids any time soon, you think you'd like to get a PhD." Cue crickets.

The fact is there are lots of reasons outside of being very intelligent and very hardworking that someone won't end up at an Ivy league/top ranked school. I'm not saying that anyone has asserted anything to the contrary but rather that it's important for all of us to keep this in mind. I think we all "know" this, but ya know!

At any rate I'm not sure if this is even useful to anyone but there you have it.

Also, I LOVE LOVE LOVE that someone actually named MY alma mater as the exemplary "opposite" of Yale. GOOOOO Chico State! LMFAO.

*slow clap* seriously.

[callmelilyb]

Thanks samjones!