What would happen if literary geniuses were interviewed by academic search committees? The summaries might look something like this:
Name of applicant: Austen, Jane
At times a charming candidate, but too coy to fit into our department of women’s studies. A bit too pleased with herself, say the senior members of the committee, and clever but already outdated, think the younger ones, who tried to engage her, but received pithy witticisms rather than engaged debate. She displayed a queer aversion to critical terminology, and sketched the layout of the hotel conference room and lobby as she fielded our questions. Occasionally amusing, with a tact that may not help her to be valued as a serious scholar, she seemed uninformed by contemporary models. Her research on the paradigms of marriage and status among the landed gentry proved disappointing in person. When asked how she would integrate an understanding of alterity into her work, she remarked that it concerned other than her immediate interests.
[. . .]
Name of applicant: Socrates (surname?)
At first the candidate’s own list of questions felt refreshing, but soon became counter-productive to the interview process. His spirit of inquiry masked an indifference to time constraints and a passive-aggressive need to dominate the conversation. As another candidate cooled his heels, the request for him to conclude his thoughts on the ideal society scarcely registered as we wondered if, then began to wish that, someone would spike his drink.
[. . .]
Name of applicant: Whitman, Walt
An exhibit for gender studies, but not a likely teacher of it. The candidate just tried too hard with the committee, telling us we were all part of one great democratic body. We are long over the metaphysics of flagwaving in critically minded academia.
(Via: Braniac)
August 26th, 2009 | 2:41 pm
Is it possible that a lot of these people (with the obvious exception of Socrates), despite being famous writers, would also be bad teachers? That is, does the snarky dig at academica implicit here go awry?
August 26th, 2009 | 2:50 pm
Will: Is it possible that a lot of these people . . . would also be bad teachers?
Some of them no doubt would be uncomfortable in an academic setting (Kafka probably wouldn’t have the personality for teaching) while other might just be annoying (I can imagine Whitman being a more manic version of Robin William’s teacher in Dead Poet’s Society.).
But if we think they would have made bad teachers we have to ask why we use them in an institution of learning? If there purpose of their work is not to teach us something, then why do we give them such pride of place in colleges?
August 26th, 2009 | 8:12 pm
“Is it possible that a lot of these people (with the obvious exception of Socrates), despite being famous writers, would also be bad teachers?”
Most of the digs at the famous people have little to do with their ability to teach and more to do with their ability to conform to faculty “harmony” and get with the program.
August 28th, 2009 | 8:26 pm
Joe –
Presumably these authors’ works are used in institutes of higher learning for their ability to “teach” (or perhaps “inspire” is a more precise word) through the work itself. In other words, the work is used as a catalyst to discuss/analyze/etc. a particular aspect of life and/or our world. Does that carry over to the author himself/herself being able to achieve such results within an academic setting? Doubtful, but perhaps. After all, “those who can’t do…” I kid. Nonetheless, all of this conjecture with respect these authors is truly of no cosequence.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact