Glass half full?

[Timshel]

At least if you don't get in somewhere, you don't have to worry about dedicating 5-7 years of your life for a job that you have even less of a chance of getting. Is it bad that I am already starting to worry about not being able to find a job and I haven't even finished getting all of my decisions yet? lol.

[TripWillis]

Teaching. Teaching happens. The point of comps is to prove that one can teach more than just one's tiny little subsubspecialty. In some cases, the preparation also forces you to helps you acquire skills necessary to keep up with research in your field (e.g. the ability to read a 500 page secondary work in two hours and still get out of it everything you need. Especially important for people whose interests are interdisciplinary in one or more ways).

I read George Chauncey's Gay New York over winter break and, though I tried to skim and selectively filter the content, wow... I want all the informations in books, please.

[veniente]

the need to demonstrate the external value of their projects.

Fuck this. I hate how devitalising ideas of 'function', 'purpose', 'use', 'value', and 'applicability' are to the humanities, how they neglect the traditional/originary notions of what humanities/higher education was 'about', as it were, or at least what the humanities could be about, their potentiality (emancipatory and otherwise), and how I'm always having to justify why knowledge/studying/thinking is something useful. While I don't wholly agree with Fish's idea that the humanities are 'honourably useless', I absolutely despise how discussions of their benefit and use are so typically framed in economic terms.

I want to know what the 'external value' or 'use' of the military is, or of investment bankers, or stock traders.

Edited February 19, 2012 by arrivant

[ComeBackZinc]

I hate it too.

Here's the problem: neither you nor I pay the bills.

[veniente]

Here's the problem: neither you nor I pay the bills.

Pretty much.

[TripWillis]

Fuck this. I hate how emasculating ideas of 'function', 'purpose', 'use', 'value', and 'applicability' are to the humanities, how they neglect the traditional/originary notions of what humanities/higher education was 'about', as it were, and how I'm always having to justify why knowledge/studying/thinking is something useful. While I don't wholly agree with Fish's idea that the humanities are 'honourably useless', I absolutely despise how discussions of their benefit and use are so typically framed in economic terms.

I want to know what the 'external value' or 'use' of the military is, or of investment bankers, or stock traders.

I don't mean to add to the tense and controversial nature of the forum lately, but there's something kind of authoritative and bourgeois about this post, and the not so inconspicuous pairing of the terms "emasculate" and "traditional/originary" has me on edge.

Edit: I mean, to address the issue, I think anyone in any discipline has to, to an extent, defend the worth and use value of said discipline. I know for one that I am very judgmental of bankers and accountants, though I try not to be. I can't imagine living in that kind of cultural condition. I guess they can't imagine living in ours either. I know we're at a disadvantage in terms of public perception, but I'm not ready to hop on the cross and say, "Woe is me! No one appreciates good scholarship anymore!" Sometimes I think we compartmentalize our studies too much in the first place and that's what's made us look like such useless eccentrics to everyone else. Just saying.

Edited February 19, 2012 by TripWillis

[veniente]

I don't mean to add to the tense and controversial nature of the forum lately, but there's something kind of authoritative and bourgeois about this post, and the not so inconspicuous pairing of the terms "emasculate" and "traditional/originary" has me on edge.

Apologies TripWillis - just a life time of explaining the use of studies in English literature to funding bodies/friends/family members/all and sundry is getting me down.

[ComeBackZinc]

I took a class in assessment last semester. Assessment of teaching, assessment of learning, assessment of departments.... Very practical and capitalist in the sense you don't like. And the sense I don't like, either. Now, as you'd hope, in addition to reading a lot of theory on how to perform that assessment, we read critical theory that agitated against the very idea of assessment of writing and English. I found a lot of it very convincing.

The problem is that the state legislatures that ultimately control public U's aren't likely to find those critiques convincing. They want to see numbers. If we don't produce them ourselves, the Kaplan corporation or similar will be happy to. Once the Kaplan people implement their tests, well, then you've got teaching to the test. Before you know it, the department is mandating a three week period dedicated to working on getting the test scores up, in order to keep our funding flowing. Then the test scores are worked into which adjuncts get rehired. Then they get worked into tenure review....

I happen to be good with those numbers and that kind of research. I would just much rather keep that kind of assessment in-house, under the theory that if we don't do it ourselves, it will be done for us. And none of us will like the consequences of that. Nobody at all.

Maybe that's me becoming the thing I say I dislike, I don't know. But outside of the rarefied air of the best funded and most elite private schools, nobody can afford to ignore this stuff. Not anymore.*

*says the grad student who is getting too big for his britches with this line of commentary.

[TripWillis]

I took a class in assessment last semester. Assessment of teaching, assessment of learning, assessment of departments.... Very practical and capitalist in the sense you don't like. And the sense I don't like, either. Now, as you'd hope, in addition to reading a lot of theory on how to perform that assessment, we read critical theory that agitated against the very idea of assessment of writing and English. I found a lot of it very convincing.

The problem is that the state legislatures that ultimately control public U's aren't likely to find those critiques convincing. They want to see numbers. If we don't produce them ourselves, the Kaplan corporation or similar will be happy to. Once the Kaplan people implement their tests, well, then you've got teaching to the test. Before you know it, the department is mandating a three week period dedicated to working on getting the test scores up, in order to keep our funding flowing. Then the test scores are worked into which adjuncts get rehired. Then they get worked into tenure review....

I happen to be good with those numbers and that kind of research. I would just much rather keep that kind of assessment in-house, under the theory that if we don't do it ourselves, it will be done for us. And none of us will like the consequences of that. Nobody at all.

Maybe that's me becoming the thing I say I dislike, I don't know. But outside of the rarefied air of the best funded and most elite private schools, nobody can afford to ignore this stuff. Not anymore.*

*says the grad student who is getting too big for his britches with this line of commentary.

So good.

[koolherc]

The problem is that the state legislatures that ultimately control public U's aren't likely to find those critiques convincing. They want to see numbers.

Of course they do. They're the fucking state. To them, knowledge is power. My academic focus is partially on the inherently positivist and hegemony-perpetuating character of knowledge as such, of language as definer of limits against the featureless all/one, and of knowledge as a tool against the un-reasoned/non-rational/non-expert larger population. Being able to engage in and explore a knowledge that doesn't automatically result in tangible product that the state (or other powerful institution) can use to further its ends is something worth validating.

I used to take the skeptical, "anti-bourgeoise" position that intellectual defenses of the "liberal arts" were an artifact of the misplaced values (guilty of prejudiced judgement here) of the elite... but more recently I realized that the constant fetishization and commodification of knowledge and skills (in, say, technical colleges, or certain associate degrees, especially in law) is just a fast track back to the philosophical heart of industrial era---millions of human "expert" workers working to further empower the state and disempower themselves, all while having no sense of the larger whole (professors of knowledge included!). Not to impugne the acquisition of practical skills (I'm big on knowing how to take care of oneself medically, nutritionally, militarily, etc.), but, given some of the existentialist undulations that I feel my confidence constantly subject to, getting paid to read books for 5-6 years and then possibly doing something as "inane" and "pointless" as teaching armchair philosophy sounds fucking excellent. The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

Edited February 19, 2012 by koolherc

[TripWillis]

Of course they do. They're the fucking state. To them, knowledge is power. My academic focus is partially on the inherently positivist and hegemony-perpetuating character of knowledge as such, of language as definer of limits against the featureless all/one, and of knowledge as a tool against the un-reasoned/non-rational/non-expert larger population. Being able to engage in and explore a knowledge that doesn't automatically result in tangible product that the state (or other powerful institution) can use to further its ends is something worth validating.

I used to take the skeptical, "anti-bourgeoise" position that intellectual defenses of the "liberal arts" were an artifact of the misplaced values (guilty of prejudiced judgement here) of the elite... but more recently I realized that the constant fetishization and commodification of knowledge and skills (in, say, technical colleges, or certain associate degrees, especially in law) is just a fast track back to the philosophical heart of industrial era---millions of human "expert" workers working to further empower the state and disempower themselves, all while having no sense of the larger whole (professors of knowledge included!). Not to impugne the acquisition of practical skills (I'm big on knowing how to take care of oneself medically, nutritionally, militarily, etc.), but, given some of the existentialist undulations that I feel my confidence constantly subject to, getting paid to read books for 5-6 years and then possibly doing something as "inane" and "pointless" as teaching armchair philosophy sounds fucking excellent. The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

This is also very good. You are all making me very excited to start my PhD program this fall!

[TripWillis]

Perhaps my instinctual reaction was derived from my 'not-even-fucking-employed'-class background. I'd say lumpenproleteriat, but Marx had some really nasty things to say about them.

Trudat. On a related matter, I need to go add Claude McKay's Banjo to the books TO read thread.

[Two Espressos]

Of course they do. They're the fucking state. To them, knowledge is power. My academic focus is partially on the inherently positivist and hegemony-perpetuating character of knowledge as such, of language as definer of limits against the featureless all/one, and of knowledge as a tool against the un-reasoned/non-rational/non-expert larger population. Being able to engage in and explore a knowledge that doesn't automatically result in tangible product that the state (or other powerful institution) can use to further its ends is something worth validating.

I used to take the skeptical, "anti-bourgeoise" position that intellectual defenses of the "liberal arts" were an artifact of the misplaced values (guilty of prejudiced judgement here) of the elite... but more recently I realized that the constant fetishization and commodification of knowledge and skills (in, say, technical colleges, or certain associate degrees, especially in law) is just a fast track back to the philosophical heart of industrial era---millions of human "expert" workers working to further empower the state and disempower themselves, all while having no sense of the larger whole (professors of knowledge included!). Not to impugne the acquisition of practical skills (I'm big on knowing how to take care of oneself medically, nutritionally, militarily, etc.), but, given some of the existentialist undulations that I feel my confidence constantly subject to, getting paid to read books for 5-6 years and then possibly doing something as "inane" and "pointless" as teaching armchair philosophy sounds fucking excellent. The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

Well, that was goddamn brilliant. Wow. I agree with TripWillis: you make me even more fascinated with the possibility of study and work in academe.

[veniente]

The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

This.

[TripWillis]

Well, that was goddamn brilliant. Wow. I agree with TripWillis: you make me even more fascinated with the possibility of study and work in academe.

It's his Malcolm X avatar.

[koolherc]

It's his Malcolm X avatar.

Touché.

I listened to this the other day:

A discussion between X and Baldwin. 7 parts. It's pretty sick.

[DorindaAfterThyrsis]

I am so clearly not smart enough for grad school.

Holy shit.

*goes back to the corner reserved for remedial English majors*

[TripWillis]

I am so clearly not smart enough for grad school.

Holy shit.

*goes back to the corner reserved for remedial English majors*

Accepted: Chicago, Duke

Clearly.

[Silent_G]

A discussion between X and Baldwin. 7 parts. It's pretty sick.

Thank you for this. Amazing. And still pretty relevant.

[bythesea]

... Being able to engage in and explore a knowledge that doesn't automatically result in tangible product that the state (or other powerful institution) can use to further its ends is something worth validating.

... The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

I apologize for butting in here, as a non-lit/comp (but I always read the lit/comp thread because this is the one GC place I've seen where people consistently have ideas). Isn't the teach - publish - tenure track, regardless of the product, itself a fetishized and commodified product? Aren't we all subscribing to the mechanisms of oppression? At least we're not one rock thrown in a pond (the all) with one set of ripples (the limiting boundaries of language/knowledge), rather a handful of gravel with multiple overlapping sets of expanding and weakening ripples. - though I don't know if this would be enough for redemption

Does this make any sense? I'm a Freire fan... but if I got in to Harvard, I would probably go, even though their endowment is stripping areas of Africa of subsistence farming land. Yeah, my loan and external grant dollars support... the unspeakable.

[veniente]

Aren't we all subscribing to the mechanisms of oppression? At least we're not one rock thrown in a pond (the all) with one set of ripples (the limiting boundaries of language/knowledge), rather a handful of gravel with multiple overlapping sets of expanding and weakening ripples.

Yes. But perhaps, like shame, complicity comes in shades or degrees. How much can one stand, which is also to say, how much can one elect to ignore? I can listen to my iPod with nary a thought for Foxconn workers hurtling to their deaths, eat animal flesh without feeling sick to my soul, look into the eyes of starving children on television and feel only the remotest fluttering of my heart. 'Justice' - once that word is uttered, where will it all end?

I don't know if this would be enough for redemption

So beautiful. What would qualify as enough? Pray tell. I'm looking for redemption.

[bythesea]

So beautiful. What would qualify as enough? Pray tell. I'm looking for redemption.

a fairy tale (which doesn't mean untrue): a small golden box somewhere with Enough Redemption inside....

[veniente]

a fairy tale (which doesn't mean untrue): a small golden box somewhere with Enough Redemption inside....

After Pandora I'm wary of small golden boxes and their contents.

[NowMoreSerious]

Of course they do. They're the fucking state. To them, knowledge is power. My academic focus is partially on the inherently positivist and hegemony-perpetuating character of knowledge as such, of language as definer of limits against the featureless all/one, and of knowledge as a tool against the un-reasoned/non-rational/non-expert larger population. Being able to engage in and explore a knowledge that doesn't automatically result in tangible product that the state (or other powerful institution) can use to further its ends is something worth validating.

I used to take the skeptical, "anti-bourgeoise" position that intellectual defenses of the "liberal arts" were an artifact of the misplaced values (guilty of prejudiced judgement here) of the elite... but more recently I realized that the constant fetishization and commodification of knowledge and skills (in, say, technical colleges, or certain associate degrees, especially in law) is just a fast track back to the philosophical heart of industrial era---millions of human "expert" workers working to further empower the state and disempower themselves, all while having no sense of the larger whole (professors of knowledge included!). Not to impugne the acquisition of practical skills (I'm big on knowing how to take care of oneself medically, nutritionally, militarily, etc.), but, given some of the existentialist undulations that I feel my confidence constantly subject to, getting paid to read books for 5-6 years and then possibly doing something as "inane" and "pointless" as teaching armchair philosophy sounds fucking excellent. The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

This is good stuff. Reminds me of what Zizek says about the tendency towards expertise and solutions in academia. Zizek states that our job should mostly be to consider whether we are asking the right questions or problematizing the right things in the first place.

Also, am I old-fashioned and naive to believe that we can also actually offer some kind of counter-veiling force, rather than just being satisfied with not overtly adding to the mechanisms of oppression?

[veniente]

Zizek states that our job should mostly be to consider whether we are asking the right questions or problematizing the right things in the first place.

How do we know we've found the right questions and the right critical objects? And, what are they for Zizek, I wonder? I haven't read enough of him to confidently say

(And, is it just me or does he look perpetually coked-up? )