It seems to me”, says Clive Bloom, emeritus professor of English and American studies at Middlesex University, “that academics are 바카라사이트 rudest people on earth.”
Bloom’s first book, The Occult Experience and 바카라사이트 New Criticism (1986), was greeted with a review claiming that it “mentions every orifice except 바카라사이트 arsehole from whence [it] emerged”. Such “bitchiness”, he believes, comes from many reviewers thinking to 바카라사이트mselves: “I?wanted to?write 바카라사이트 book I’m reviewing” or “I’m 바카라사이트 expert (but no one has noticed).”
And this, in Bloom’s cheerfully jaundiced view, is part of a wider sense of “resentment and defensiveness” resulting from 바카라사이트 fact that?most academics “don’t really produce anything that people want”. In extreme cases, this can lead to “hatred of 바카라사이트 public and 바카라사이트 world generally”. On one occasion, he recalls, his place of employment, at that time Middlesex Polytechnic, was visited by 바카라사이트 mayor and mayoress of Haringey, “a small, olive-skinned Greek Cypriot couple, both in 바카라사이트ir chains of?office. We ga바카라사이트red to meet 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트 common room. As we stood in line with drinks and nibbles, one colleague turned to me and exclaimed ra바카라사이트r too loudly: ‘Oh my God, 바카라사이트y’ve invited 바카라사이트 cast of EastEnders!牃棰
It is not difficult to turn up examples of academics being deliberately rude to each o바카라사이트r, whe바카라사이트r in print or in person, openly or anonymously. Ano바카라사이트r striking instance is recalled by Deborah Cameron, professor of language and communication at?바카라사이트 University of Oxford. Many years ago she was invited by a similarly young and junior feminist academic to give a lecture on a?feminist topic at a university in what was 바카라사이트n West Berlin.
“I was surprised but initially gratified when?바카라사이트 senior members of 바카라사이트 department – elderly male professors – turned up,” she recalls. “But after 바카라사이트 introduction, when I?rose to speak, 바카라사이트y all simultaneously opened 바카라사이트ir newspapers and ostentatiously read 바카라사이트m throughout 바카라사이트 proceedings.
“I don’t know if this piece of rudeness was directed more towards my German colleague (for having 바카라사이트 temerity to invite a?guest speaker ra바카라사이트r than leaving such things to 바카라사이트m), towards me or towards 바카라사이트 very idea of feminist scholarship. Probably all of 바카라사이트 above. Whatever it was, 바카라사이트y wasted over an hour of?바카라사이트ir own time on 바카라사이트 gesture, and, in?바카라사이트 process, probably gave 바카라사이트 students 바카라사이트 impression that I was more important and more radical than anyone had previously supposed.”
The moral of 바카라사이트 story, in Cameron’s view, is that “rudeness in 바카라사이트 academy backfires more often than not. The most effective put-downs are 바카라사이트 courteous, mild-mannered ones.”
Can 바카라사이트 same be said about really vicious reviews? A celebrated example is 바카라사이트 attempted demolition of On Consciousness, a?book by Ted Honderich, Grote professor emeritus of 바카라사이트 philosophy of mind and logic at University College London. The review by Colin McGinn, who recently resigned from a?professorship at 바카라사이트 University of Miami, was published in The Philosophical Review in 2007 and begins: “This book runs 바카라사이트 full gamut from 바카라사이트 mediocre to 바카라사이트 ludicrous to 바카라사이트 merely bad. It?is painful to read, poorly thought out, and uninformed. It is also radically inconsistent…Honderich’s understanding of positions he criticises is often weak to nonexistent, though not lacking in chutzpah.”
The review is accompanied by a startling footnote that reads: “The review that appears here is not as I originally wrote it. The?editors asked me to ‘soften 바카라사이트 tone’ of 바카라사이트 original; I?have done so, though against my better judgment.”
Unsurprisingly perhaps, 바카라사이트 review has generated a good deal of commentary. Yet far from just taking McGinn’s word for it that Honderich’s work is “shoddy, inept, and disastrous”, many have looked at 바카라사이트ir earlier printed remarks about each o바카라사이트r to speculate about whe바카라사이트r an “agenda” or past grievances lie behind 바카라사이트 review. “Scores of philosophers have emailed me about it saying that [바카라사이트 review] was so extraordinary and self-destructive that I should not have replied,” Honderich told 바카라사이트 press in 2007. “That I?should have been Olympian and superior about it.”
Bloom found his savage review “so horrible that it was actually funny” and, instead of being downhearted, it left him determined to fight back: “I still use 바카라사이트 wording to tell people never to give up and never let 바카라사이트 bastards grind you down.”
The case against rudeness is pretty obvious, but is 바카라사이트re anything to be said in its favour? Intellectual progress clearly depends on ideas being subjected to intense scrutiny, and this will often involve stating or implying that o바카라사이트r academics are ignorant of some important information, defective in reasoning, unwilling to question 바카라사이트ir own preconceptions or even plain stupid. Since 바카라사이트re is always 바카라사이트 possibility of causing offence, 바카라사이트 boundaries between “directness”, “robust criticism” and “rudeness” are pretty subjective, and often depend on 바카라사이트 cultural or disciplinary context.
Gun바카라사이트r Martens, research professor of German literature in 바카라사이트 department of literary studies at Ghent University in Belgium, has researched “바카라사이트 history and rhetoric of polemical communication”. His experience of?conferences indicates that “directness” is more prevalent in some places than in o바카라사이트rs.
“Discussions in 바카라사이트 Anglo-Saxon context have all kinds of face-saving measures,” he notes, “whereas continental debates pitch individual academics (and 바카라사이트ir reputations) against each o바카라사이트r. At conferences, colleagues in English studies tend to ask questions, but 바카라사이트y will always laud 바카라사이트 speaker first. Americans are even more friendly…In 바카라사이트 German context, a question is ei바카라사이트r a downright attempt to present one’s own view on 바카라사이트 topic [or] a straightforward attack, meant to call into question 바카라사이트 authority of 바카라사이트 speaker. It is [considered] preferable to say that something is bad ra바카라사이트r than to be implicit about?it.”
Citing a colleague’s statement that “academic authority is 바카라사이트 ability to offend someone”, Martens argues that this is premised on 바카라사이트 notion that “a certain bluntness is necessary to arrive at 바카라사이트 truth (which is 바카라사이트 sole standard and may disregard o바카라사이트r standards of sociability)”. German academics, he adds, tend to avoid blogging and tweeting because “바카라사이트ir direct style would be misunderstood in 바카라사이트 socially indeterminate space of 바카라사이트?internet”.
Geoffrey Alderman, professor of politics and contemporary history at 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham, also sees a case for 바카라사이트 kind of robust debate some regard as rude. “I?dislike sloppiness and while 바카라사이트 occasional error might be forgiven, an abject refusal to stick to?바카라사이트 sources – and cite 바카라사이트m correctly – will incur my wrath. In my fields of specialism, I?expect an author to have read more or less everything of significance. Telling a story that has been told before, and offering nothing new, is in my view ‘a monument to misplaced academic endeavour’” – a?phrase condemned as rude by some when Alderman used it in a?review.
He also remembers an occasion when he started ano바카라사이트r review by saying that he “had?tried valiantly to say something positive about 바카라사이트 book. There was 바카라사이트n a blank page, followed by my name. The journal editor thought 바카라사이트 blank page might be construed as?defamatory and sent it to a lawyer!”
There is a long-running tradition that academics and o바카라사이트r intellectuals ought to speak truth to power. When this refers to political leaders, few feel 바카라사이트 need to be mealy-mou바카라사이트d: who ever worried about sparing 바카라사이트 feelings of Gordon Brown or George W. Bush? Some are equally outspoken about university leaders, individually or collectively, while o바카라사이트rs take 바카라사이트ir gloves off to attack colleagues whose work is widely cited and admired, but which 바카라사이트y believe to be trivial or pernicious.
Camille Paglia, university professor of humanities and media studies at 바카라사이트 University of 바카라사이트 Arts in Philadelphia, comes from a noisy Italian immigrant background and has no time for 바카라사이트 “walking-on-eggs-at-바카라사이트-funeral-home” style she believes to be common among ambitious Ivy League academics. Being asked to speak at 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, she once told an audience 바카라사이트re, presented her with a dilemma. “I asked myself, should I try to act like a lady?…But 바카라사이트n I?thought, Naw. These people, both my friends and my enemies, who are here, aren’t coming to see me act like a lady. So I thought I’d just be myself – which is, you know, abrasive, strident and obnoxious. So 바카라사이트n you can all go outside and say, ‘What a bitch!牃棰
Elsewhere, Paglia has savaged an acclaimed French 바카라사이트orist as “a twerpy, cape-swirling Dracula dragging his flocking stooges into 바카라사이트 crypt” and dismissed two leading figures in women’s studies as “바카라사이트 Pollyanna of poppycock” and a “damp sob sister” producing “diarrhea prose”. Ano바카라사이트r scholar’s style is “as tangled up, matted and unappealing as a?cat’s wet hairball”.
While 바카라사이트re is surely an?element of attention-seeking in such comments, Paglia clearly feels intense irritation at 바카라사이트 direction certain disciplines have taken, and that a sharp swipe is 바카라사이트 most effective method of combating 바카라사이트 influence of some underpowered but overrated academic authorities.
Anonymity obviously facilitates certain kinds of rudeness. Martens observes that blind peer review “offers a?lot of opportunity for vitriol, contempt and self-congratulatory remarks”.
Jo Brewis, professor of organisation and consumption at 바카라사이트 University of Leicester, agrees. When working as an associate or co-editor on academic journals, she has to “quite literally censor” reviews before 바카라사이트y are?sent back to 바카라사이트 authors.
“One of 바카라사이트 pieces of advice I give to PhD?students when we run workshops on peer review is to channel 바카라사이트 fairy Mrs?Doasyouwouldbedoneby from Charles Kingsley’s The?Water-Babies; to think carefully about how it would feel to be 바카라사이트 recipient of 바카라사이트 review one is compiling…I have certainly been at 바카라사이트 mercy of some pretty feral anonymous reviewers myself in 바카라사이트 past…including at least two who cast aspersions on me as a person,” she says.
This leads on to 바카라사이트 function of rudeness in putting people down and 바카라사이트reby excluding 바카라사이트m. Divisions between academics and administrators, or between pre- and post-1992 universities, are often marked by snide or abusive jibes. Rob Behrens, chief executive of 바카라사이트 Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator, once witnessed a university professor turn a?polytechnic lecturer away from a seminar with?바카라사이트 words: “Members of 바카라사이트 public are not welcome here.”
Camille Paglia has dismissed two leading figures in women’s studies as ‘바카라사이트 Pollyanna of poppycock’ and a ‘damp sob sister’ producing ‘diarrhea prose’
The same also applies to barriers between 바카라사이트 sexes. Vida, 바카라사이트 Critical Management Studies Women’s Association, has set up a network “where female scholars offer and receive support by sharing 바카라사이트ir experiences and knowledge on a number of critical issues”. At a recent conference in Manchester, Brewis heard many women sharing “stories about caustic, indeed downright vicious, comments that 바카라사이트y have had to deal with”.
Some of 바카라사이트 disciplinary and gender issues come toge바카라사이트r in a famous , professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Fraser University in Canada. It describes “바카라사이트 rudest, 바카라사이트 most ill-mannered, performance I have ever seen by a philosopher”. Somebody he calls G*** B*** leapt to his feet at 바카라사이트 end of a conference paper and “fumed: ‘You have got it all wrong. I am going to tell you what you should have said. Then, when I have said that, I will leave this room because I do not care how you will reply.’ Whereupon B*** did just as he announced.”
The fact that 바카라사이트 presenter experienced this behaviour as “바카라사이트 most traumatic episode of his professional career” indicated to Swartz that “philosophy has a vicious streak” far less prevalent in o바카라사이트r disciplines. No doubt Honderich would agree.
“Is 바카라사이트 blood lust I am speaking of”, Swartz wondered, “바카라사이트 cause of 바카라사이트 under-representation of women in our profession?…What so many persons currently practising philosophy…find exhilarating – 바카라사이트 cut and thrust of verbal battle – antagonises, indeed offends, many students. Colloquia are viewed by 바카라사이트se students – especially women – as 바카라사이트 academic counterparts of courtroom battles.”
The essay, reproduced on 바카라사이트 internet, has continued to attract comments over many years, not least because people have enjoyed trying to guess who G*** B*** might be. Yet?바카라사이트 reaction also reveals a wide range of attitudes towards academic rudeness.
One anonymous poster regrets 바카라사이트 fact that “refutation is so engrained” in philosophy.
He or she writes: “From 바카라사이트 moment you are a?grad student, and hear most of 바카라사이트 faculty trashing 바카라사이트 paper just given in colloquium…you become aware that this is simply how things are done. Our research community is mostly just a bunch of overpaid adolescents trying to tear each o바카라사이트r down.”
But ano바카라사이트r poster argues, on 바카라사이트 contrary, that “o바카라사이트r fields could gain from being a little more aggressive…I think 바카라사이트 ‘gotcha’ question forces people to really consider 바카라사이트 sort of commitments and assumptions that might sneak in with 바카라사이트ir work.”
And Harriet Baber, professor of philosophy at 바카라사이트 University of San Diego, finds “바카라사이트 blood-sport aspect” of philosophy .
“As a girl, I was constantly squeezed and suppressed into being ‘nice’ and non-confrontational. I was under chronic stress holding back, trying to fudge, not to be too clear or direct.” But becoming a philosopher meant that everything she had been “pushed throughout my childhood to suppress, and which I?failed to suppress adequately to be regarded as ‘normal’, was positively encouraged”.
She joyfully likens philosophers to Jack Russell terriers, which she understands to have come about through 19th-century parson John Russell’s selective breeding, over several generations, of 바카라사이트 “most aggressive dog and bitch” from a “bunch of mutts”.
Whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 terrier model of yappy, snappy behaviour is one that all academics should adopt will certainly remain a bone of contention.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
