Perhaps most important of all, though, is that we learn to speak to other _academic disciplines_. Not just our colleagues next door in the history or communications or English department, but in places like cs, math, engineering. Kari (”accidentals and substantives”) is especially eloquent on this point. As she points out, it would be nice to see some “humanities envy” every now and then among the scientists.

i believe the way is to teach and research about stuff that matters to both academics and non-academics.  the times of speaking amongst ourselves are, i believe, over.  those kinds of conversations are not only tedious, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the larger scheme of things.  that’s my take.

On the other hand:  as Mariah suggests, there might be more effective ways of prodding academics into considering their engagements with the non-academic universe.  Trust me, it’s a battle that I fight repeatedly in my own work; attempt to write for an audience broader than one’s own specialty, and (maybe this is rationalization, but I cannot help but sense a connection) find yourself in this position.  So you see the quandary, for those of us who attempt to combine participation in the MLA with extra-academic engagement:  I’m determined to stay theoretically sophisticated and yet generally accessible in my work—and this is the thanks I get?  There’s a directly proportionate relationship between the markers of success that our field grants and one’s remove from a broad participation in the culture, I fear—and for that reason, articles like McLemee’s, however well-intended, however humorous, and however softly pinching are destined to provoke such defensive responses.

On top of which, being pinched on the same spot year after year after year is just plain tiresome.

At the moment (ask me again on Dec. 30 how I feel), the bottom line seems to me that many serious scholars of literature and culture, who would very much like to engage in a serious, generous, forthright way with the world-at-large, often find themselves prevented from doing so by both the internal demands of the scholarly universe (publishing in the “right places” demanding certain kinds of technical language and attention to trends) and by the jeers of that world-at-large (the technical language and trendiness taken as evidence of our irrelevance). 

There are no carrots anywhere, only sticks, every way you turn.  And to complain about the sticks is to be taken for a “tender little baby.” Is it any wonder many retreat into defensiveness and alienation?

So how to find a way out of this morass?

academics can be relevant to our times.  and a lot of the cats i know are very relevant, especially in the classroom. but when it comes to research that matters, they sure are doing a poor job these days.  that’s what i think at least.  in this light, i found scott’s article very generous, giving us a soft pinch instead of a harder slap, you know?  i’ve got no beef with academics but isn’t it time we begin taking part in larger discussions, actions, and movements?  and if so, doesn’t that participation begin with language?

The experience of the past day or so has been interesting. I have been repeatedly called insulting by people who sometimes begin to froth a bit while calling me an idiot, a homophobe, a failed academic, etc. The latter in particular is amusing. It tends to confirm one’s darkest suspicions about the insular narcissism of people whose chief virtue is not intellectual seriousness but a certain docility (as Bourdieu puts it) in their relationship with institutions.

Now, that’s not meant as a blanket denunciation of academics. (Some of my best friends, etc.) In fact, I spend about 99 percent of my time reading scholarly work, and writing about it such a fashion as to make it better understood—not simply beyond the academy, but within it. To be candid, I do wonder sometimes whether it is worth the trouble. The lack of curiosity, let alone intellectual vitality, among academics is often really astonishing. Maybe it’s just exhaustion? Or rather, the ennui of life as alienated cogs in bureaucratic engines?

Anyway, once in a while, I will write with tongue in cheek. The effect, it seems,is to bring out paranoia, in full blaze. An item of perhaps 400 words is part of the “anti-intellectual” jihad of “hate” against longsuffering professors? For what it is worth, the whole point of my little article was to suggest that some MLA participants themselves appear to have entered a kind of symbiotic relationship with the media, giving papers those titles precisely in an effort to win that little moment in the spotlight. Hence the idea of giving them the red carpet treatment through an awards ceremony, a la the Oscars.

Not one person seems to have detected that implicit element of criticism within the piece. (It seems a lot more damning than pointing out that professors are sometimes would-be hipsters etc.) Calling it “anti-intellectual” reveals a really impoverished conception of the life of the mind.

Now, I’m sure a lot of people really do grasp that point clearly enough. If you do—or even if you don’t—then by all means say hello at MLA.

Just do me a favor. If I ask you what papers you have heard that are interesting, please don’t translate my question. What happens every year is that people respond by saying: “Hmmm, what’s ‘hot’ this year?” And then they proceed to tell me what is “hot and trendy.”

I do not care at all what is hot and trendy, and would never use such terms in my writing without displaying conspicious levels of sarcasm. Talk about what you found interesting, important, an addition to the conversation. I’m as concerned with the actually developing substance of scholarship as any of you are. After all, I spend at least as much time as you do reading it.

If you insist on talking about what’s hip, hot, and happening, I will regard you as part of the nominating committee for next year’s Provokies.

If you’re unable to make it but want to meet up for a drink afterwards, do give me a call at 818.915.vika (why yes, I *am* a dork.  what?!  they asked me what I wanted the last four digits to be.)

Saturday, 27 December

8. Electronic Theory and Criticism

3:30-4:45 p.m., Cunningham A, Manchester Grand Hyatt

Program arranged by the Association for Computers and the Humanities.  Presiding: Vika Zafrin, Brown Univ.

1. “Show, Not Tell: The Value of New Media Scholarship,” Cheryl E. Ball, Michigan Technological Univ.

2. “The Simultaneous South: An Electronic, Multilinear Approach to Borges’s ‘The South,’” Marjorie Luesebrink, Irvine Valley Coll., CA

Respondent: Thomas Swiss, Univ. of Iowa.

Chuck:  You, George, and I must compare schedules and make arrangements.  I’m booked up Saturday night, but should be fairly flexible thereafter.

Mariah:  This makes two years in a row, no?  I’ll be happy to see the Drs. Presto, don’t get me wrong, but they’re no replacement for your smiling self.  Particularly since I think at least one of the good Drs. will be unable to fulfill your vicarious martini-consuming request.  Bottom line:  you’ll be sorely missed.

Chun:  Like a poem, will we recognize you when we see you?