The 'Gentleperson' Scholar
Oh, Frank, I miss you. For those of you who haven't heard of Frank, he's the brilliant, brilliant, brilliant philosopher, composer, musician, filmaker, chef....ahh, the list could go on, that I knew well during my undergrad. Sadly for many of us, Frank left Calgary in the fear that he'd die of boredom remaining here (probably a good move) and moved on to greater artistic and academic pursuits. But, his lessons remain. And the one that I remember SOOOOOOOOO much right now that he constantly grappled with? The gentleman/woman scholar.
At first, I never knew what the hell he meant by this, but as I've gotten a little older, and a lot more chilled out and less egotistical than I was as an undergrad, I've come to both appreciate and understand it. Perhaps what's most seminal is that I understand now why Frank would have a pronounced need to grasp and implement this in his own life....but more on that later.
The gentleperson scholar is someone who, parsimoniously defined, doesn't shit all over everybody under the guise of being 'smart.' And don't we all know people who don't fit in this 'gentleperson' category? I seem to encounter them more and more often: the academics who are hell bent on demonstrating to everyone within earshot that they posess infinitely more expertise than the 'philistines' they encounter in the world both inside and outside academia. They love to tell you about their publication record, their GPA, and they revel in the opportunity to tell disinterested friends and family members about their knowledge in, of course, only the most esoteric terms possible.
I have discussed this with several talented people (particularly Paul), and I certainly understand that much of this emanates from the insecurities that the academic environment seems to generate. Moreover, I completely recognize and appreciate the loneliness that can emerge from having a deep sociological knowledge of the world; we tend to recognize consequences--often unintended, and generally negative--of behaviours and choices that others simply take for granted as 'normal.' However, once we recognize this, can't we get past it, at least in our outside lives? Or must we be so hell bent on coming off as the expert that we alienate everyone but our colleagues (and potentially even them)?
Alternatively, Frank advocated the 'gentleperson' role, in which the academic seeks to engage people from outside academia in its tenets, but does that using a method of dialogue versus monologue, and in that, strives to achieve the goal of empowering versus belittling. Given that he came from a very working-class family and community, I think that he saw this as a means of remaining connected to his history rather than giving it a wholesale rejection in light of the enormously different worldview he acquired while studying philosophy. In this, I see much more integrity than those I know who abandon their past in search of more 'appropriate' or 'fitting' future; this seems so paradoxical, given that the people who know nothing of sociology (or philosophy, for that matter), are probably the ones who need it the most. And to assume that they can't understand it seems so arrogant! Perhaps it just needs to be framed in terms that resonate with them, which is a difficult task, but not an impossible one. This is evidenced within my own department, where a brilliant professor constantly seeks to share his own knowledge of illness experience with many people outside of academia; in doing so, I know that he's touched many lives, which is evidenced by the fact that everytime I attend a colloquial social gathering, somebody seems to have picked up his work, or when I was in the hospital last year for treatments, I'd see obviously socioeconomically disadvantaged, ill individuals reading 'At the Will of the Body' while awaiting their own treatments.
Is this not how we can acheive the goal of 'infiltration' that I've discussed in previous posts? By stepping outside of the narrow box of academic egoism and attempting to give a fuck about anybody besides ourselves?
I know this must seem enormously idealistic, but the way I see it, idealism is the historical root of our very discipline. Furthermore, I'm in my early 20s, so if I'm ever going to embrace such idealism, now's the time!
I'll get off my soapbox now, and just hope that this means something to somebody other than me.
At first, I never knew what the hell he meant by this, but as I've gotten a little older, and a lot more chilled out and less egotistical than I was as an undergrad, I've come to both appreciate and understand it. Perhaps what's most seminal is that I understand now why Frank would have a pronounced need to grasp and implement this in his own life....but more on that later.
The gentleperson scholar is someone who, parsimoniously defined, doesn't shit all over everybody under the guise of being 'smart.' And don't we all know people who don't fit in this 'gentleperson' category? I seem to encounter them more and more often: the academics who are hell bent on demonstrating to everyone within earshot that they posess infinitely more expertise than the 'philistines' they encounter in the world both inside and outside academia. They love to tell you about their publication record, their GPA, and they revel in the opportunity to tell disinterested friends and family members about their knowledge in, of course, only the most esoteric terms possible.
I have discussed this with several talented people (particularly Paul), and I certainly understand that much of this emanates from the insecurities that the academic environment seems to generate. Moreover, I completely recognize and appreciate the loneliness that can emerge from having a deep sociological knowledge of the world; we tend to recognize consequences--often unintended, and generally negative--of behaviours and choices that others simply take for granted as 'normal.' However, once we recognize this, can't we get past it, at least in our outside lives? Or must we be so hell bent on coming off as the expert that we alienate everyone but our colleagues (and potentially even them)?
Alternatively, Frank advocated the 'gentleperson' role, in which the academic seeks to engage people from outside academia in its tenets, but does that using a method of dialogue versus monologue, and in that, strives to achieve the goal of empowering versus belittling. Given that he came from a very working-class family and community, I think that he saw this as a means of remaining connected to his history rather than giving it a wholesale rejection in light of the enormously different worldview he acquired while studying philosophy. In this, I see much more integrity than those I know who abandon their past in search of more 'appropriate' or 'fitting' future; this seems so paradoxical, given that the people who know nothing of sociology (or philosophy, for that matter), are probably the ones who need it the most. And to assume that they can't understand it seems so arrogant! Perhaps it just needs to be framed in terms that resonate with them, which is a difficult task, but not an impossible one. This is evidenced within my own department, where a brilliant professor constantly seeks to share his own knowledge of illness experience with many people outside of academia; in doing so, I know that he's touched many lives, which is evidenced by the fact that everytime I attend a colloquial social gathering, somebody seems to have picked up his work, or when I was in the hospital last year for treatments, I'd see obviously socioeconomically disadvantaged, ill individuals reading 'At the Will of the Body' while awaiting their own treatments.
Is this not how we can acheive the goal of 'infiltration' that I've discussed in previous posts? By stepping outside of the narrow box of academic egoism and attempting to give a fuck about anybody besides ourselves?
I know this must seem enormously idealistic, but the way I see it, idealism is the historical root of our very discipline. Furthermore, I'm in my early 20s, so if I'm ever going to embrace such idealism, now's the time!
I'll get off my soapbox now, and just hope that this means something to somebody other than me.
posted by Soci Womyn at 9:07 PM
5 Comments:
(Jumps onto Soci Womyn's soapbox)
In terms of academia, I am not sure if what you seek is possible until someone is WELL established into their career...and even then, the concept of a gentlemanly scholar is tenuous at best.
The social climate of the academy is, as Hobbes might have put it, a war of all against all, nasty, brutish and short. We are socialized to excel. We are judged, ranked, sorted, admitted, awarded and rejected based on these emergent criteria. Hence, we are always competing, whether we want to think of it in such a way or not. The higher the level you aspire to, the more intense it gets. As one professor once told me, in academics...you better get ready to blow your own horn, cause no one else is gonna blow it for you. She/he with the loudest horn wins this game...as ugly as that may sound.
When you get firmly established into your career...as the brilliant health academic you mention in your blog surely is, there is no need to blow your own horn as much...yet, even he still does it. As you know (I am sure you have heard him lecture), it is very much a monologue and it is replete with name droppings and references to some pretty obscure stuff. This is in itself a "demonstra[tion] to everyone within earshot that [he] possesses infinitely more expertise than the 'philistines' he is teaching".
I don't think it is possible to ever fully escape the culture we are bred into. It is in our blood. In our soul. We have become disciplined bodies in the Foucautian sense. No one is exempt...the only real difference lies between the people who are willing to fully admit they are out for blood, and the people who nefariously sneak around, smiling at you to your face, only to turn around and and plot your demise behind closed doors.
Personally, I fear the latter more than the former...at least I know where the former stands. They may not make as many friends...but at least you don't have to worry about that person stabbing you in the back. Et tu, Brute?
(The preceding soap-box message has been brought to you by someone who has certainly been accused of being less than gentlemanly-like on more than one occasion)
I do agree with much of what you have said Paul, but it now becomes important to clarify my metaphoric use of "demise plotting".
I certainly don't believe that anyone is going home at night and plotting nefarious strategies of how to bring down all those around them in the academy. The mechanism has been perfected...the competition internalized, as you so correctly mentioned.
Just as Foucault traced out the transition from discipline of the body to discipline of the soul, so operates the mechanisms governing our own institutionalized selves. We have made ourselves our own competition, and it is through this internalization which competition emanates, both outward and around us, from above as well as from below (much in the same way that power does for Foucault). No one occupies higher ground in this battle, the struggle has shifted to within...but ultimately manifesting itself through the social. We are pitted against each other like soldiers (or dogs?) in everything we do; from the grading process to funding to publishing. "Publish or Perish" as they say...if that doesn't sound like a dog fight I dont know what does.
One thing I do agree with you wholeheartedly on is that this "destroy or be destroyed" mentality is what is driving academia into the ground. I have long been a proponent of the "Publish when you have something important to say" philosophy. Unfortunately, I don't make the rules.
Thus, the underlying message behind my first post, in directly addressing the notion of the "un-gentlemanly scholar" is...
"don't hate the player, hate the game".
(And thanks to both Soci Womyn and Paul for setting me straight on my misinterpretations of the original post).
Hey guys... I've weighed in. But, uhm, I rambled. And Paul, you were worried about being wordy. Check out my response at: jessmo.wordpress.com.
Interesting original idea Soci Womyn- akin to a discussion about self-grooming toward becoming a public intellectual? ...yet on a micro-scale rather than a Riesman-type large-scale hype.
Even more interesting that the discussion quickly involved into a discussion that could include the statement, "People are hateful – myself just as much as anyone else. It sucks, and doesn’t make me feel good."
Totally sad. Sorry Paul, but I know that I am not hateful. Actually, I know very few people who are "hateful".
I have so much more that I could write about these issues, but I think that until we stop and inspect the soil that this is all growing in... it is redundant.
Perhaps - as mark distinguishes- "the people who nefariously sneak around, smiling at you to your face, only to turn around and and plot your demise behind closed doors" should pull their pants back up and stop pissing in the garden.
Hi everyone,
Just what you all need - more 'stuff' from someone new, but Jessmo has directed my attention to your discussion and as a true academic, I can't help but give my opinion!
So I have a few thoughts on your gentlewo/man scholar, probably partly stemming out of some recent experiences that have made me question my faith in this concept. But, even with these experiences, I still do believe in it. First, I find it interesting that some of the thoughts (against the concept) sound so biological - that we are 'bred' to be that way - or almost religious - that it is in our 'soul' to be like this. I think this is the part I disagree with the most. Shouldn't we, as sociologists, recognize that if people just took the world as it was, that if no one/group stood up to change it, we would be in SUCH a different world. Isn't part of what makes the social world so interesting that it doesn't just bear down upon us, that we can interact, and think, and communicate to actually create change? So although our world may be built upon competition (a fact I 100% agree with and often do not like), I believe that we can change our practices to at least get closer to the gentlewo/man scholar. Through changing our practices, can't we change the world?
But I also have two quick stories that I wanted to share as they have made me believe that this concept is a possibility. First, when I did my Master's at Queen's, I saw the possibilities of this notion. One particular story sticks out. In the second year of my program, a group of students decided to set up a Theory Discussion Group - it was going to be a social group, centered around the growth of knowledge and ideas, separated from school in every way except that it involved doing some readings. In this group, we took turns picking a short reading (often only 30 pages or so) that we felt would be of interest to the group, that we would then discuss in a social setting. The group ended up reading things ranging from Nietzsche to feminist psychoanalysis (that was me!), from readings on the movement towards sexual freedom to aboriginal post-colonialism. This group produced some of the most interesting, fascinating, challenging things I've ever read and I've never seen a group that honestly gave space to every participant to share their views and let them grow. Of course, there was disagreement, but even this was OK. It was a fun, interesting group and I believe demonstrates what could/should be possible in academia. Even at that program, we had an awareness of the rankings but we also had a sense of collegial relations and often professors/students were more interested in sharing knowledge than trading marks. While we may not have changed the system there, as we were still in competition, this group (along with numerous other experiences) demonstrated that you could get away from those rankings (or at least ignore them for a while) if you treated your colleagues with respect and gave everyone's ideas respect and space.
I also wanted to give a (hopefully) short story about someone outside academia, that being my mom. My mom is an amazing woman but we have jokingly called her the referree and martyr in my family. As so many women do, my mom spent 20 years putting us all first and not even putting herself on the list. Of course, the repurcussion of this is that she now feels like she can't sit in on 'smart talk' at the dinner table and got to the point where she did nothing for herself. A few years ago, when I started doing feminism, I started talking to my mom, really talking to her - talking to her about life and the academics of it (as with feminism the two often can't be separated). Since then, my mom has slowly come out of her shell and has slowly gotten back in the conversation, to the point where she came out, on her own, to come and watch me in the Vagina Monologues last year (her first trip on her own since she married my dad). Right after that performance, my mom headed down to Palm Desert to join her friends for a vacation and as a culmination of all this feminist stuff and the play, my mom said that she and her friends talked about gender, sexuality, and feminism for the 2 weeks that they were there. See, a group of 8 50+ year old women talked gender as a result of the changes in my life and the changes in my mom's. While my mom still makes comment that she can't keep up with me 'school-wise', I can see a change in her and I can see that (some) of my ideas have been making their way in, at least to make my mom question things more. Maybe this isn't what you guys are looking for but it shows me that it is possible to bring in people from the outside. And I think that Foucault would agree with this - that change happens through chains of reaction, where we make changes in our lives and they ripple through the people we know. Maybe we have to change our tone and the words we use, but it is possible to start a dialogue, to start challenging others, and being challenged by others. Maybe this isn't the gentlewo/man scholar, but it is to me and shows me that it is possible (at least I hope it is). And even if it isn't, isn't it better to have optimism and strive for positive change than to just stick with that unsatisfying status quo? That's my rant, thanks for the interesting conversation you guys!
Post a Comment
<< Home