Representations of the Academic

In the spirit of posting to the blog, I would like to hitchhike upon Andy’s concluding point about the “representations of the academic” in the modern university. I will break down this phrase into function and perception. The cultural perception—how academics are viewed in contemporary society—typically overrides the function—what academics actually do? This growing disparity among social opinion affects not only the funding universities receive, especially in the humanities, but also the effect academics have when implementing or resisting policy change. Part of the problem, I argue, is that the perception has become much stronger than the function, as academics are unsure of their role in the fabric of society and within the university.

Disagreements among departments are indicative of the identity crises academics experience in the university. If academics possess anxieties and ambivalence about their role in the university, then this *unknowing* spreads throughout culture. In addition, popular media—funded, promoted, and controlled by corporate interests—capitalize upon this unknowing in order to dismantle the university network, which is one of only a few places left for critical inquiry and, perhaps, one of the last defenses against the corporatization of our whole social sphere. Bill Readings gets at this point somewhat in “University Without Culture?” when he recognizes two common tensions in the university’s future: 1) return to a conservative past and bolster the traditional roots or 2) recreate a new “cultural identity” in order to adopt a contemporary and relevant situation that reflects contemporary society. He calls the latter a “multicultural position” (465). This very binary indicates the anxieties and tensions that arose in the department meeting mentioned in Andy’s post: do we return to our roots and cultural identification of years past by reinforcing “literature” in course names or do we recognize the plurality of the discipline and use expansive, multicultural monikers such as “texts.” The third option, which Readings advocates, seems too extreme and unrecognizable to any previous academic identity and threatens to undermine the whole institution as we know it. As we have been discussing all term in this colloquium, perhaps Readings advocates the third option because it ushers in a whole new and uncomfortable discussion about how we perceive ourselves and our function as academics, as opposed to being defined by popular media or culture.

One could certainly argue that the outcomes are the same regardless of the semantic nuances, but the point highlights the role and identity of a department, and ultimately an academic. Throughout this colloquium we have visited many opinions about what a university “was,” “is,” and “will be.” Throughout this debate, there is a growing sense of detachment and powerlessness from the academic, who, I would argue, should be at the centre and ultimately leading the debate. As a PhD student, it’s difficult to avoid feeling reactionary when entering the profession: how can I adapt, assimilate, acquiesce, and so forth, in order to possibly obtain a position somewhere? While this reality certainly exists, it extends from the larger issue that academics have not only become reactionary, but they also cannot decide where they stand within these issues.

Again, playing off of Andy’s post directly, do we study texts or literature? Does it matter? And are the representations of academics as irrelevant correct? And, nodding again toward Readings, what does excellence mean? These are all questions each of us are asking ourselves in our training, so it’s particularly disconcerting to see this position as one of the fulcrums of the university crisis. Linking “excellence” and “professor” synonymously provides some indication of the breakdown and a general antagonism for an academic’s identity that has been couched in anti-elitist rhetoric by the conservative right. Obviously this stems from political and capital gain, but there can be a lesson here that without any sense of identity and unification, the academy is essentially creating the possibility for its dismantling. Or, as Readings suggests, “the decline in the power of the university as an institution over the public sphere, with the concomitant elimination of the intellectual as a public figure” (465). This brings us back to how we perceive ourselves and our function within the university. We might consider thinking about how we want to move forward before approaching the system as a whole.

To this end, here’s my question(s): what is our role as an academic? That is to say, why are we here and what motivates our work? Is it some form of social responsibility and are we deluding ourselves in thinking that it’s anything more than a “job”? Is it “fun” work and therefore something enjoyable? Or, is it simply something we “know” after completing years of coursework in a specific area? I guess what I’m getting at, and what I ask myself, is what motivates our continued interest in this profession and how do we see ourselves placed within it: as active or reactionary members? And, what is our function? Or, worse, do we even know what we do, why we do it, and how to achieve it within the present system in a potentially catastrophic flux? If departments cannot find some cohesiveness regarding the direction of academic study, then how can we find stability and hope in the future of this system?