What I Hate About Academia
Lately, some things have really started to get me thinking about the internal hate-on I have for academia and what it does to people. You see, I never realized I had this deep-seated love/hate relationship with higher learning, so it's thrown me for a real loop.
On a re-run of 'Law & Order: SVU' last night, the 'case' centered around a perpetrator who was, at the beginning of the episode, killing prostitutes. Since this is my thesis topic, I tuned in pretty closely to see what good old Dick Wolf would have to say about this, just in time to watch the police appointed 'psychological profiler' pace back and forth, providing a succint and fascinating profile of this crzay killer for a captivated group of hard-nosed cops who were hanging on his every word. And it just pissed me off.
This got me soooooo angry about the general 'perception' of academia we see in TV, and that which is subsequently, or at least simultaneously, picked up by academics themselves. A lot of these issues I have with it I've discussed with fellow sociologists, in particular the fabulous and completely brilliant Ms. Catwomyn Jayde, so I owe a lot of my ideas to conversations the two of us have shared. So, in no particular order, here are the things I hate about sociological academia/academics:
1. The concept of 'expert knowledge.' Academics are desperate to be recognized as 'experts' by their students, colleagues, the general public (particularly the media) and their friends and family. This makes them feel sooooooo cool. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't think that some academics certainly do have expert knowledge, such as certain medical researchers or hard scientists. But this type of knowledge is completely inappropriate in social science generally, and sociology specifically. Why? Because expert knowledge is based entirely on the ability to predict an outcome before it happens, centering on a complete knowledge of the factors that produce such an outcome. So, while a chemist may accurately predict a chemical reaction based on the properties of a certain element, attempting to 'predict' human behaviour in the same fashion is just plain stupid.
As a result of this obsession with coming off as 'experts', sociology has rapidly devolved into a confused pile of statistics journals and actuarial typologies. The main problem with these is that such approaches lead researchers to go and out and find people who 'fit' their rigid little schemas, rather than attempt to understand the complexity and nuance of individual stories.
Now, this doesn't mean that I think sociologists have no knowledge base; they certainly do. Our knowledge can be vast, it can be critical, and it can be ever-evolving based on continual research. But can we really be 'experts' who can know the social world better than the people who live in it every day? Fuck no. What we can do better, however, is thoroughly, respectfully, and critically study it.
2. The obsession with 'productivity.' Academics measure the sum total of their lives and the experiences they have within those lives solely in terms of how productive it is. A 'how was your weekend?' inquiry will be met with 'Fantastic--I finished my article' or 'Horrible--I just hung out and didn't get anything done.' Horrible?! Spending time watching TV, a wicked movie, or hanging out with your best friends is 'horrible' ??? WTF??? It gets to the point with some people that all experiences that are not productive are considered a waste of time and are forfeited before the fact, because their social value cannot possibly compare to their potential gain in productivity. And when I think about it, the happiest times in my life have not necessarily been the most academically productive.
3. The EGOS. Do I really need to go further with this? If I was to make any comment, I would say that this ego makes people miss sight of the potential that social research holds to advance knowledge or alleviate issues of human suffering, because academics are too damn concerned about coming off as the 'best.' When people get obsessed with this, they display annoying behaviours, such as coming to conferences and responding to your presentation with a synthesis of their own research that has nothing to do with a fucking word you just said. Or, when you ask them about coursework, they say 'it's great, I've got all A's.' Yeah, but did you LEARN anything, tool? Or they love to tell you about how much funding they have from any number of sources. The funniest thing is that these people think that sociology's all about THEM, when what they should really recognize is that they're all about sociology.
Sorry for the rant, but that's what the blog's for.
On a re-run of 'Law & Order: SVU' last night, the 'case' centered around a perpetrator who was, at the beginning of the episode, killing prostitutes. Since this is my thesis topic, I tuned in pretty closely to see what good old Dick Wolf would have to say about this, just in time to watch the police appointed 'psychological profiler' pace back and forth, providing a succint and fascinating profile of this crzay killer for a captivated group of hard-nosed cops who were hanging on his every word. And it just pissed me off.
This got me soooooo angry about the general 'perception' of academia we see in TV, and that which is subsequently, or at least simultaneously, picked up by academics themselves. A lot of these issues I have with it I've discussed with fellow sociologists, in particular the fabulous and completely brilliant Ms. Catwomyn Jayde, so I owe a lot of my ideas to conversations the two of us have shared. So, in no particular order, here are the things I hate about sociological academia/academics:
1. The concept of 'expert knowledge.' Academics are desperate to be recognized as 'experts' by their students, colleagues, the general public (particularly the media) and their friends and family. This makes them feel sooooooo cool. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't think that some academics certainly do have expert knowledge, such as certain medical researchers or hard scientists. But this type of knowledge is completely inappropriate in social science generally, and sociology specifically. Why? Because expert knowledge is based entirely on the ability to predict an outcome before it happens, centering on a complete knowledge of the factors that produce such an outcome. So, while a chemist may accurately predict a chemical reaction based on the properties of a certain element, attempting to 'predict' human behaviour in the same fashion is just plain stupid.
As a result of this obsession with coming off as 'experts', sociology has rapidly devolved into a confused pile of statistics journals and actuarial typologies. The main problem with these is that such approaches lead researchers to go and out and find people who 'fit' their rigid little schemas, rather than attempt to understand the complexity and nuance of individual stories.
Now, this doesn't mean that I think sociologists have no knowledge base; they certainly do. Our knowledge can be vast, it can be critical, and it can be ever-evolving based on continual research. But can we really be 'experts' who can know the social world better than the people who live in it every day? Fuck no. What we can do better, however, is thoroughly, respectfully, and critically study it.
2. The obsession with 'productivity.' Academics measure the sum total of their lives and the experiences they have within those lives solely in terms of how productive it is. A 'how was your weekend?' inquiry will be met with 'Fantastic--I finished my article' or 'Horrible--I just hung out and didn't get anything done.' Horrible?! Spending time watching TV, a wicked movie, or hanging out with your best friends is 'horrible' ??? WTF??? It gets to the point with some people that all experiences that are not productive are considered a waste of time and are forfeited before the fact, because their social value cannot possibly compare to their potential gain in productivity. And when I think about it, the happiest times in my life have not necessarily been the most academically productive.
3. The EGOS. Do I really need to go further with this? If I was to make any comment, I would say that this ego makes people miss sight of the potential that social research holds to advance knowledge or alleviate issues of human suffering, because academics are too damn concerned about coming off as the 'best.' When people get obsessed with this, they display annoying behaviours, such as coming to conferences and responding to your presentation with a synthesis of their own research that has nothing to do with a fucking word you just said. Or, when you ask them about coursework, they say 'it's great, I've got all A's.' Yeah, but did you LEARN anything, tool? Or they love to tell you about how much funding they have from any number of sources. The funniest thing is that these people think that sociology's all about THEM, when what they should really recognize is that they're all about sociology.
Sorry for the rant, but that's what the blog's for.
posted by Soci Womyn at 10:55 AM
1 Comments:
So, my lovely partner (aka 'Smoo') just left for a writing workshop and I found myself alone with my cats trying to decide how to spend my evening. I could work on my thesis, but since I pretty much can't even stand to look at it anymore right now, I decided to distract myself by reading Soci Womyn's hilarious blog. And I totally think I made the right decision. Actually, I think my new 'hobby' (that's code for 'escape from my thesis') is going to be reading these!
I know that my comment is probably just a little 'biased' since I was a participant in the stirring up of some of these complaints about sociology and so-called 'expert' sociologists, but I just have to say how absolutely, positively right on this blog is (oops, I know a certain prof who would not be happy with my excessive use of adverbs in that sentence- like I give a shit!).
How about some meaningful sociology? Where is it? It has to exist! Where are the passionate sociologists who decided to base their life's work on studying human behaviours, practices, processes, struggles, interactions, connections, and nuances with intensity and drive? And what about engaging in Sociology for a REASON, other than to bulk up your publications, or for tenure, or for your already-bursting EGO, or worst of all, just out of plain old unconscious ignorance. I just read the most dry article examining the consequences labeling of 'adolescents' 'deviants' using regression analysis! I think that the authors may not have even given any thought to the fact that the 'adolescents' happen to be living, thinking, feeling HUMAN beings! If I read another study that claims to explain anything meaningful using statistics I will explode! Don't get me wrong, I do adore the beauty of statistical methods and of course there are important instances when the analyses are sociologically helpful, but NOT when you are trying to explain youths' 'behaviours'.
Whew, I guess I just LONG to find more sociologists who give a shit and aren't driven to 'produce' for their own benefit.
It's sad, because from where I am now, I find it hard to be hopeful at all- during the first week of classes I asked all of my students to share with the class why they were taking Sociology- and out of about 60 students, almost all of them said 'because it's easy' or 'because I couldn't get into anything else'. I have been trying to spark some interest in them...but it's difficult when my own fire is waning. It's frustrating, because I don't want to desert my precious Sociology.
Dorothy Smith may be my last hope! Please inspire me Dorothy, please!
And, SociWomyn, thank you so much for the opportunity to vent. As always, your honesty, brilliance and your power are just what I needed to keep me goin' on in the right direction- the feisty, but truthful, authentic, and MEANINGFUL direction!
I HEART you forever and always!
Post a Comment
<< Home