You're comfortably snuggled on whatever comfy furniture you happen to own, reading a philosophical piece about the nature of adolesence and schools. The article is clearly an opinion piece but the author has a sound argument and is supporting it well. Now the author begins addressing potential concerns with the argument and, through some logical acrobatics, manages to dismiss them. However, while reading, something begins to bother you. You're not sure what it is until you realize that there is a wholly different perspective that calls into question their entire thesis irreconcilably.
What's worse is that the author is aware of this perspective and what you noticed but were unaware of was the vituperative language that the author is using to discuss elements of this different perspective.
You become angry with the author. The author has failed to openly state his or her biases in the essay and now, only after having read half of it, are you able to fully glean the academic prejudice of the writer. What's more frustrating is that this person is adhering to a perspective that is weak and possibly harmful to advances in the field and is holding the perspective because it is the popular one. Whether because she or he has been taught to hate the potential productivity of the different view or has developed it on his or her own as a means to protect her or his work from the intellectual revolution that lies on the horizon of their wearisome career, spent lonely amongst the musty tomes of their own personal ivory tower, is unclear.
What is clear is that he or she is unwilling to admit being wrong. Honestly, it isn't her or his immediate fault, it is the fault of the Academy that teaches scholars that abandoning a perspective is tantamount to admitting wasting years of research and funds. Better to die on the sword of revolution, the very institutional edifice that requires revolution, than to humbly admit being wrong or short-sighted.
The logic of the article, the citations, the facade of legitimacy and validation have become transparent to you. You are upset because the article begins making logical errors, there are lapses in flow, you wonder how in the heck this tripe was published. Then you remember that it's popular to think this way. Furious, you want to crumple the paper, tear it apart piece by piece, point by digressive point.
Of course, you realize the hypocrisy that that would entail. Your own assault on the author's perspective would reinforce the adversarial nature of the intellectual opponent. Frustrated, you can but only put the article down or finish it in the hopes that there might be some small concession or contrition. You know it won't be there, but your youthful optimism keeps you going.
This is the state of the field that I am going into. Why am I doing this to myself? Isn't there something else that I'm equally passionate about that I can go and do?
Posted by Mendon at July 23, 2006 7:04 PMIs there something else? Sure, you can find something else that you're just as passionate about. Will you escape this problem? No, of course not. There is something ingrained into our very culture that prevents most people from turning around and saying, "maybe I took a wrong turn at this crossroad," particularly when it's a popular road to go down. Instead these people/ organizations/ bureaucracies/ fields forge on ahead until they are irrevocably lost. We are all guilty of this behavior at one point or another (and usually fail to see it in ourselves).
Every field needs more people who can not only see two sides to every coin, but who can see that not every issue has to be a battle between two sides.
Posted by: Hayley at July 23, 2006 11:36 PMHopefully someone can direct me to the source of the quote that I find myself using increasingly in my own life.
"Give me the courage to change the things I can change, the patience to endure the things I can't change and the wisdom to tell the difference".
It's very easy to be concerned about how the "system" works, or what other people are doing. But ultimately, our capacity as individuals is to change our own attitudes and behaviour. If this is what you believe in then do it, and do it because you love it and you love the humanity it allows you to serve. Act in the manner consistent to you principles and prove by example that it is more useful to be willing to learn by acknowledging mistakes than to fight to maintain personal ego.
The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, commendable and seemly conduct.
(Quote from memory, it would be wise to check the original).
Posted by: Helen at July 24, 2006 4:07 AMI agree with Helen.
Posted by: Mara at July 24, 2006 6:58 AMYou know what would be the coolest thing ever?
There's a new TMNT movie coming out. I think Mendon should get some new Turtle pajamas!!!!
Posted by: Mara at July 24, 2006 8:20 AMThe source for Helen's first quote is the Serenity Prayer. It is often attributed to St. Francis of Assisi and is used in all 12-step programs. And is very good advise on how to practice detatchment. The wisdom thing is the tricky part. I know, I've been working on it for years!
Posted by: Ma at July 24, 2006 8:37 AMKristen didn't want me to post this, it is a bit whimsical. I don't know why I've been thinking about it lately. Here goes.
A frog walks into the loan office of Blomfeld and Paddiwhack. He is invited into the office of Charles Padiwhack where he requrests a lone.
"I would like a loan for $250, 000 to buy a yacht," says the frog.
"Well, uh, Mr. what did you say your name was?" Replies Charles.
"My name is Winston Jagger Esquire, Thank you," answers the frog, visibly irritated that the loan officer doesn't recognize him.
"Hmmm, Ho, Hum," Charles replies somewhat overly dramatically. "Well, what kind of collateral can you provide?"
The frog looks at Charles a little bit quizzically but finally reaches into his pocket and retrieves a tiny glass elephant, which he places on the desk in front of his bumbling loan officer.
Utterly confused, Charles Paddiwhack picks up the glass elephant, excuses himself, and walks over to his partner's office where he relates the whole confounding affair to Blomfeld. Finally, he tells Blomfeld, "What's most confounding about the situation is that he offered this glass elephant as collateral! What the heck is this thing? Is it worth anything?"
After hearing the whole story, Blomfeld sticks his head into the hallway, where he can readily see Winston. With satisfaction he turns to Charles and says, "It's a knick-knack Paddiwhack! Give the frog a loan. His old man's a rolling stone!"
Ha, ha, ha! Shaggy dog story! In Popop's proud tradition!
Posted by: Ma at July 24, 2006 9:06 PMYou're changing the subject. On purpose. How different is it to try to divert an opposing view on your blog from trying to ignore an opposing view in academia?
Posted by: Kristen at July 24, 2006 9:17 PMIn one sense, yes, I'm changing the topic. However, let's be honest. How much is my plaint about the ethical legitimacy of an old world discipline and more about wanting sympathy? I wasn't really changing the subject (well, I was) but I was seeking "psychological equivalency". Next time, I'll just state that all I'm really looking for is a little bit of emotional support.
Posted by: Mendon at July 24, 2006 10:03 PM