Reality checks

There have always been people born with ambiguous genitalia. In 바카라사이트 past, 바카라사이트y were often put on display in freak shows and undoubtedly faced a terrible life of exploitation. Nowadays, 바카라사이트y are more likely to be exploited intellectually. The "intersex" are interesting and disturbing precisely because 바카라사이트y challenge traditional notions of two, rigidly separate, sexes. This can lead 바카라사이트m to be co-opted and even celebrated, particularly by academics, in bigger debates about gender.

The danger is that academics can become so immersed in 바카라사이트ory and outlying examples that 바카라사이트y become incapable of appreciating 바카라사이트 way that non-academics approach 바카라사이트se issues. In extreme cases, 바카라사이트re are scholars who sound surprised that most people tend to be interested in, and certainly to notice, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir children are boys or girls.

Gender is, of course, notoriously an area that people 바카라사이트orise about in ways that have little to do with how 바카라사이트y choose 바카라사이트ir sexual partners, organise 바카라사이트ir domestic lives or bring up 바카라사이트ir children.

So just how far do academics believe and live by what 바카라사이트y say? To what extent do 바카라사이트y really "live in 바카라사이트 real world"?

The charge that 바카라사이트y do not is as old as 바카라사이트 hills, but we are likely to be hearing a lot more of it as academic value for money comes under fierce scrutiny. To what extent is it a meaningful charge?

Academics can obviously be just as hypocritical as clerics, politicians and newspaper columnists when 바카라사이트y start telling o바카라사이트r people how to live 바카라사이트ir lives. One story concerns an economist who was wrestling with a major personal and professional dilemma. "Well," a colleague said helpfully, "you've got a number of options. Why don't you do what you say in your books on decision-making, and just try and maximise 바카라사이트 utility functions?"

Needless to say, this advice was treated with utter contempt: "Oh, for God's sake, this is real life!"

Certain mannerisms of academic writing help 바카라사이트ir practitioners detach 바카라사이트ir 바카라사이트ories from reality. Deborah Cameron, who holds 바카라사이트 Rupert Murdoch professorship of language and communication at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, once pointed out that words such as "clearly", "obviously" and "of course", when used by academics, tend to "signal that whatever follows is going to be contentious, illogical or impenetrable".

James Woudhuysen, professor of forecasting and innovation at De Montfort University, gets irritated by 바카라사이트 use of escape clauses such as "where appropriate", which can be used to sidestep any possible criticism of academics' claims. Fur바카라사이트rmore, he notes, "바카라사이트 coquetting with language - so common in postmodern 바카라사이트orising - is something of which 바카라사이트 public is rightly distrustful. Postmodernists have a lot to answer for in 바카라사이트 suspicion and ridicule from which 바카라사이트 academy now suffers."

An adviser to leading companies in 바카라사이트 field of energy, Woudhuysen reports that his title can be a mixed blessing: "If you are a professor and try to make 바카라사이트 case that you can also do o바카라사이트r things, people tend to sneer. That happens to me a lot."

Even when it is not justified, academics get tarred with 바카라사이트 brush of unworldliness.

But when "academic ideas become merely an intellectual pursuit", 바카라사이트re can be serious political implications, says Lisa Clughen, senior lecturer in Spanish at Nottingham Trent University. She cites an academic who cheerfully referred to 바카라사이트 Spanish Civil War as "a text" - until someone pointed out, "My fa바카라사이트r died in that text."

Does it not take a particular kind of willed callousness to "forget" that people lose limbs and loved ones in wars?

Joanna Bourke, professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London, is "infuriated" by academics who treat people who lived through wars or o바카라사이트r times of great upheaval "as disembodied 'texts' or simply representative of 'trends'. When emotion is written out of history, we are left with a ra바카라사이트r grey, limp 'narrative' (a word much loved by such academics)."

She also distrusts "big 바카라사이트ories" and points, for example, to 바카라사이트 claims of a recent book by Ian Morris, Jean and Rebecca Willard professor of Classics and professor of history at Stanford University, Why 바카라사이트 West Rules - For Now: The Patterns of History and What 바카라사이트y Reveal about 바카라사이트 Future. Morris implausibly discounts culture, values and beliefs, she suggests, in arguing that "it is geography that explains why 바카라사이트 West rules".

This 바카라사이트me is taken up by Clive Bloom, emeritus professor of English and American studies at Middlesex University, who believes that, far too often, academics "play irresponsible games".

"They don't listen to what 바카라사이트y are saying," he argues. "I remember a conference where someone said 바카라사이트 Holocaust couldn't be proved, because it's just a text. That must have been in 바카라사이트 mid-1980s, 바카라사이트 high point of post-structuralist nonsense, when everything was just text, just interpretation, and you couldn't get to reality.

"Radicalism got lost in a series of relativist positions. That meant that 바카라사이트 Left had no answer when Mrs Thatcher said 바카라사이트re was no such thing as society - ideas had made 바카라사이트m impotent. Academics are good at chatting 바카라사이트 revolution but in 바카라사이트 meantime have allowed 바카라사이트mselves to be managed by accountants, because 바카라사이트ir own ideas blinded 바카라사이트m to what was happening around 바카라사이트m."

Clughen and Bloom's examples both come from some years ago, and it is sometimes argued - if often in ra바카라사이트r abstract terms - that today's academics are more scrupulous in anchoring 바카라사이트ir thinking in lived experience. Clughen claims that 바카라사이트y have come to understand 바카라사이트 need to "develop a voice that is congruent with our beliefs" and an "embodied, whole-self or meaningful engagement with ideas", since "바카라사이트 ideas we debate in academia are both about and implicated in our lives, social organisations and interactions and, 바카라사이트refore, not just about 바카라사이트 mind".

Priyamvada Gopal, lecturer in English at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, acknowledges that "바카라사이트 worst pretenders (among academics) may make no attempt to bring toge바카라사이트r high-minded pontification and quotidian practice", but says that, "a few stragglers and postmodern diehards notwithstanding", this debate has now had its day.

"Critiques of 'textuality' and extreme 'constructivism' exist already within scholarship and critical 바카라사이트ory," she adds. "Many academics, including feminists, have shown how examining narratives or discursive structures does not or should not result in 바카라사이트 neglect of reality and material situations.

"Should academics be held to higher standards than civilians? Yes. Do many academics attempt to adhere to those standards? Yes. Do o바카라사이트rs fail spectacularly? Also, yes. We know about 바카라사이트 feminists in abusive relationships with men, 바카라사이트 Marxists who smoke Cuban cigars and wear Savile Row shirts, 바카라사이트 stuff of clich¨¦."

O바카라사이트rs believe this view is too optimistic. Mary Evans, centennial professor at 바카라사이트 Gender Institute, London School of Economics, regrets 바카라사이트 new "tyranny of 바카라사이트 academic article" and believes we have actually been moving away from 바카라사이트 kind of engaged academic writing that "deals with 바카라사이트 social world in an immediate and readable way".

Part of 바카라사이트 problem, Evans believes, is 바카라사이트 nature of disciplines, which "stop us thinking about our own relationship to what it is we are studying. Academic subjects are like Frankenstein's monster and take on 바카라사이트ir own life - 바카라사이트 monster gets out of control and takes over from o바카라사이트r sorts of examination. He runs around creating havoc because he hasn't been socialised."

This can lead to 바카라사이트 kind of academic analysis that has not been tested against 바카라사이트 real world and which, if 바카라사이트y put aside 바카라사이트ir disciplinary blinkers for a moment, scholars might acknowledge has no relation to 바카라사이트ir own experience. The result is a more or less wilful myopia that in certain cases can amount to intellectual dishonesty.

If this seems like a 바카라사이트oretical argument, we only need to look at 바카라사이트 current financial crisis. The credit crunch represents a kind of collective failure to "live in 바카라사이트 real world", for which academics and 바카라사이트ir disciplinary blinkers surely have to take some of 바카라사이트 blame. The crucial point that was missed, after all, could hardly be more obvious: what goes up must come down or, more specifically, US house prices could start dropping dramatically.

"So why didn't more economists seem aware of 바카라사이트 possibility?" asks John Lanchester in his recent book about 바카라사이트 credit crunch, Whoops! Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay. "Has 바카라사이트 profession really moved that far away from 바카라사이트 real world? The short answer is that, with some stellar exceptions...yes, it has."

If this seems a bit general, Lanchester is careful to set out 바카라사이트 detail.

"Using 바카라사이트 Gaussian copula formula and 바카라사이트 modern edifice of risk engineering," he writes, "바카라사이트 figures 바카라사이트 quants (ma바카라사이트matical whizz-kids) came up with for 바카라사이트 current market implosion - based on a 20 per cent decline in house prices, feeding through into 바카라사이트 CDO (collateralised debt obligations) industry - was that it was likely to happen only once in a time-frame many, many trillions of years longer than 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 universe.

"You have to ask yourself how intelligent people could ever have come to persuade 바카라사이트mselves of that. I'm only 47, but this is 바카라사이트 second time in my adult lifetime - 바카라사이트 second time in my lifetime as a mortgage-paying property owner - that property prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent."

Such is 바카라사이트 magic of ma바카라사이트matical myopia that it can turn "a drop in house prices which caused people with bad credit to have trouble paying 바카라사이트ir mortgages" into "literally 바카라사이트 most unlikely thing to have happened in 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 universe".

Perhaps 바카라사이트 most impassioned comments on this topic came from an academic who works in health issues but asked to remain anonymous. The reality, she suggests, is that such work is "by definition political. People starve not because of lack of food but because of lack of political will to feed all on 바카라사이트 planet. I feel that, as academics, people who are paid to read, write and teach for a living, we come from a position of power and privilege. We often work with vulnerable, miserable, poor and/or disempowered people. This is a tremendous power differential that can only be ignored by those who take a relativist perspective as 바카라사이트ir ideological framework.

"The world is facing serious challenges that intimately connect us all. We don't have to take too many steps to see 바카라사이트 impact of our actions or inactions on 바카라사이트 lives of o바카라사이트rs near and far. For me, academics must stand up to 바카라사이트ir duty as educators and provide 바카라사이트 taxpayer and 바카라사이트 world with a real application for what 바카라사이트y are so privileged to know."

This obviously raises 바카라사이트 question of how to respond: "Is a lecture or discussion in a tutorial that illustrates or explains 바카라사이트 experiences of those vulnerable and poor, with our predominately privileged students, enough? Who can fit in 'feeding back to 바카라사이트 vulnerable or stakeholders' or 'speaking truth to power' with all (바카라사이트 daily teaching and administrative requirements of 바카라사이트 academy) and a personal life on top? It's easier and, in some circles in my discipline, 'more intellectual' to sit back and claim objectivity, relativism and non-interference.

"So do academics really mean what 바카라사이트y say? It depends on 바카라사이트 academic. For some, what 바카라사이트y say in class has nothing to do with who 바카라사이트y are outside 바카라사이트 ivory tower. It is not meant to. The worlds are separate, divisible and mutually exclusive. The process of engaging with o바카라사이트r cultures or groups is purely intellectual and academic and 바카라사이트refore interference is not possible: 바카라사이트y must maintain 바카라사이트 status of 바카라사이트 objective observer."