Why? His reading of a munificence of surveys, interviews, and theoretical studies leaves him contending that first-year college students are decidedly uninterested in grand adventures of most kinds beyond the social. In the first year out, he concludes, students stash their souls away in an identity lockbox. They devote their main energies not to discovering the world of the academy but rather to surviving the world of the campus”and the two, seemingly, have little connection. Clydesdales report is clear and stark: Except for a handful of teens who become the future intelligentsia . . . the overwhelming majority of teens I studied appeared culturally inoculated against intellectual curiosity and creative engagement.
As Vonnegut might put it: strong stuff. Whats a humanities professor to do when confronted with, in another of Clydesdales disturbing phrases, the students discourse of nonchalance?
Clydesdale urges us to lie low, radically recalibrate our expectations, and hope for some pedagogical openings in years two and three. Given his framework and data, its an altogether reasonable conclusion. It is also a counsel of despair. Rather than accepting it, we might first give Clydesdales own discourse a closer look.
The First Year Out is scrupulously social-scientific, guild sociology at its best. The students encounters with sex, alcohol, and drugs Clydesdale classifies under the rubric of managing gratifications. Students do this managing while navigating relationships, though meaningful connections are often lacking. These varied activities reflect our American cultures socialization processes, which generate a large proportion of relatively diligent workers who are for the most shaped by popular American moral culture”a culture that may or may not, he thinks, provide a sufficient basis upon which to construct independent biographies or sustain shared lives.
What is Clydesdale saying? Better, what language is he speaking? To the extent that these descriptions sound simply like plain English, its a sign that we, too, have been socialized in the popular American moral culture he describes, and have thus learned to think (without thinking) in the lingua franca of the modern American public sphere. Its a language rooted in the passé but persisting attempt to be value-neutral, universal, and objective in observation”as if Nietzsche had never lived, Derrida had never spoken, and thousands of Ph.D. dissertations had never been written unmasking the fraudulence of this particular language game.
But the game is still being played, and played hard, with arguments against it having little effect against the forces aligned to maintain it. Meanwhile, real argument becomes impossible (you cant argue with objectivity), true diversity is minimized in the name of cordial and controlled obfuscation, and the corporate capitalist (dis)order, rooted in the (scientifically achieved and justified) manipulation of people, animals, and the earth, rolls right along.
Is it conceivable that eighteen-year-old American college students could be brought into a richer relationship with themselves and their world when guided by this tongue (in whatever its disciplinary dialect)? If, as the historian Wilfred McClay puts it, the relationship to the objects under consideration is always implied by the language we use, then our turn more than a century ago to naturalistic science for the academys master tongue has bonded us to a way of seeing that keeps subject and object detached and facilitates our own continuing evasion of the grand reality that binds us together.
We human beings have no choice but to make moral hay with whatever language were tossed, regardless of its purported neutrality vis- -vis moral questions: This is simply the way the human animal lives. To teach a new vocabulary to a people is to lead them into a new set of relationships with each other, with their past, with their institutions, and with the earth itself. What will these relationships be like? It depends at least in part on how wise the language is”how capacious its vision of reality, how intricate its sense of our circumstance.
What Clydesdales study mainly reveals, by both his research and his discussion of it, is the intellectual and moral folly of this, our modern tongue, and why our efforts to do the work of education with it have been so disappointing. If we want to get into our students identity lockboxes, I suggest we first break open the academys linguistic lockbox.
Eighteen years ago, in his history of the American university, George Marsden noted that in view of the widespread collapse of confidence in the Enlightened quest for scientific objectivity, the academy, if only for the sake of consistency, should welcome”indeed nurture”more linguistic richness. But its not just the students, it seems, who wish to guard their identity lockboxes”the academy is guarding its identity tightly, too. Should we be surprised when our students follow suit?
A generous measure of linguistic freedom, a freedom that encourages intellectual exploration at the foundational level of religious, moral, and philosophical pursuit, might not just free up some students for real discovery”it might free the academy, too.
Eric Miller, professor of history at Geneva College, is the author of Glimpses of Another Land: Political Hopes, Spiritual Longing , from which this essay is adapted, and of Hope in a Scattering Time: A Life of Christopher Lasch.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook , subscribe to First Things via RSS , and follow First Things on Twitter .
Continue Reading »]]>
Continue Reading »]]>