11. September 2008 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,

Tim Burke writes about his personal experience of growing up as an intellectual, interested in reading and knowledge over other “mainstream” interests. I’ve been thinking about this a lot myself, and writing about it elsewhere. My life took a kind of weird turn late in middle school into high school where I abandoned much of my geekdom (except reading a lot) and opted to attempt to hang with the popular crowd. By my senior year, I’d become much more jaded about what it meant to be popular and tried to be my own person. Honestly, I think I didn’t really become comfortable with who I am until about 10 years ago.

I was struck by a story Tim related in his post, not about my own experience as a geek, but about my experience as a staff member. He talks about hearing a story from an uncle who served in the military about the way soldiers were treated by officers. Ten-year-old Tim offers up the suggestion that this has always been the case, back to Sargon the Great (I had to look it up myself). Tim was trying to make a connection, trying to show he knew something about the topic and that he could relate to the story in some way. The uncle, of course, didn’t see it that way. And Tim recognizes what may have been the key issue:

Still, there’s a fundamental asymmetry. I could take what he said and add it to my knowledge, make use of it. He couldn’t take what I said unless he followed me into formal knowledge, or trusted me so much that what I said was in the books was as good as truth.

Had I been there, had I even been the uncle, I would have said, “Really? I didn’t know that. Who’s Sargon the Great?” But I am always hungry for more knowledge and never afraid to admit that I don’t know something. To me, that’s not a sign of weakness. But what that made me think of was the way that a lot of staff would respond the way I might. I’m not talking just the “academic” staff (librarians and the like), but also administrative assistants, housekeepers, and others. After being around faculty and students, they often take a genuine interest in their work and see that as being a benefit, getting to talk to people about intellectual things, learning something new.

The asymmetry I often see goes the other way. Faculty often take no genuine interest in the thoughts or ideas of the staff. We have among our staff talented musicians, artists, woodworkers, writers, amateur historians, athletes, and more. We have people who’ve done interesting things in their lives and who’ve been to interesting places. And while I’ve seen some faculty take real interest in what staff have to offer, I’ve seen that when staff speak at discussion groups about these issues, fewer faculty attend than when it’s a faculty member speaking about their research. I’ve seen one-sided conversations where staff ask about research or classes and the faculty member asks nothing about what someone might have done over the summer or what books they’ve read or movies they’ve seen. I tend to have the confidence to assert myself in such conversations, but many staff may not, may not see that what they know is of value.

I’m not saying this to say, “Hey you faculty jerks, take some interest.” I don’t think the lack of interest is intentional or malicious. Many faculty must and do spend a lot of time focused on their subject matter and that’s certain to affect what they talk about and how. But it might be another explanation for the distaste “regular” people have toward intellectuals. It may not be just insecurities, but also a feeling of being slighted.

19. May 2008 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,

The whole concept of intellectual has been a mainstay of my life since at least my sophomore year in college. Before that, I didn’t really think about it much, caught as I was in the tug-of-war between being popular and being smart. In high school, I abandoned my studies to drink and date, but while I was drinking, I engaged in the kinds of conversations one could only characterize as intellectual. The meaning of life and the existence of God were common topics. It wasn’t until college, however, that the concept began to take on real meaning for me. I began to believe that I didn’t measure up to true intellectuals. I wasn’t smart enough, serious enough or deeply thoughtful enough to really be intellectual. Sadly, there were people in my life who told me these things. I have no idea which came first.

In the last couples of weeks, the concept of “public intellectual” has been raised a number of times. First, Anne Dalke brought this up in her discussion about why she uses public blogs in her courses. At Faculty Academy this past week, the concept became something of a theme, weaving its way through many panels and discussions. Finally, in catching up on blogs over the weekend, I ran into this article, mentioned by Tim Burke, where the author entreats academics to get involved with the “real world.” For me, the quote that really hit home was this:

To become university-based public scholars, young people may well have to put their ambition into cold storage for a decade and a half. Go to graduate school, write a conventional dissertation, get a tenure-track job, publish in academic journals and in university presses, give papers at professional conferences to small groups of fellow specialists, and comply with all the requirements of deference, conformity, and hoop-jumping that narrow the road to tenure while also narrowing the travelers on that road. Then, once tenured, you can take up the applied work that appealed to you in the first place.

There are two issues that this raises for me, one is that it implies (perhaps correctly) that the only space for an intellectual to truly work is in a university as a faculty member. There’s no space outside of that realm. The second is the whole tenure process. Why, oh why does this process essentially keep people from doing important work until they’re through the process. It’s what has always scared me away from pursuing this career track.

Wikipedia actually has a decent article on the intellectual. It provides this initial definition: “An intellectual is one who tries to use his or her intellect to work, study, reflect, speculate, or ask and answer questions about a wide variety of different ideas.” According to this definition, there’s certainly room for someone outside of academe to be intellectual. The problem is that outside of academe, intellectualism isn’t much valued. (I’m sure there are exceptions to this, by the way.)

So, here’s the thing. Anne and other faculty who are using blogs and other social tools to teach are trying to create the next generation of intellectuals within or without academe. And those of us out here blogging, I think, are trying to be public intellectuals of a sort. The problem is, we need to work to change the institutions that we work in and we need to work to create a more intellectual environment for everyone. I think people really are tired of the media glossing over everything or turning everything into a shouting match. But they don’t know how to work their way out of it. People assume that the other path is dense, jargon-filled prose, but it doesn’t have to be. It could be a rich conversation that allows everyone a way in. Increasingly, I feel that this is my role, to bridge the gap between the public and academe. And I guess that makes me an intellectual after all.