In my seminar class this morning, I got into a pretty heated (somewhat unnecessary, somewhat necessary) conversation with another student on the subject of Academia.
After having read Fred Moten and Stefano Harney's The Undercommons, specifically their chapter on 'The University and the Undercommons', I suppose I was in the headspace of being critical of the meaning of Academia but also of University (or Universitas) as a institution of dominance.
I'll walk through the entire context that led up to the dispute so I can put this all in perspective:
A group was giving a presentation on the (lack) of media coverage on the Attawapiskat first nation suicide crisis and their living conditions of the community. As they finished their presentation, they asked a question (I wish I could remember it verbatim) but it was basically asking whether a conversation concerning the crisis would be best had in an academic setting, or if discussing ways the government needs to attend to the poor living conditions, limited access to health services, and overcrowding within the Attawapiskat community, could be done anywhere such as on public forums and dinner tables.
The first part of their question about 'academic settings', prompted me to raise my hand and begin a conversation about what exactly made up an academic setting and if it the word 'academic' really meant anything. The group presenting seemed on board with my interrogation as were a few other people in class, but things began to change when I said that "Academia in and of itself was not transformative, but that the people working beyond academia were. Their work could be transformative".
I immediately got some push back from an authoritative member of the class (I'm sure you can figure out what I mean) who insisted that I not generalize academia and take into account the many changes in policy that have happened through the efforts taken up by activists/academics. While I didn't disagree with the statement, I tried to make it clear that I hadn't attacked those operating within the university/academic setting, but rather than system of dominance that is the University (the system, not the actors). I went on to say that I've had plenty more engaging and fruitful conversations about serious issues such as these in bathrooms, in lines for food, sitting on the couch with friends than I have in most large lectures at University. Important conversations can happen anywhere.
But before I could even smile and apologize to the group presenting for taking up their discussion time, a student directly addressed me and said that Academia is important that I "couldn't quote bathroom conversations in an essay or in petition for policy change". On the surface, I could see what he was trying to say but I didn't agree so I said "well, why not? Why can't these conversations that happen in common places have the same authority and credibility as those that happen within the walls of building called the University?"To exacerbate matters, he then went on to say "Aren't you like planning on doing a MA? I don't get where you're coming from..."
All I could do was laugh because clearly he had missed the point once more: my interrogation of academia at that point in time, was not to centre myself or even speak about myself. I had not made it personal by any means but yet, his question regarding my plans of starting a graduate degree (where my inquiry/research could happen literally anywhere but I've chosen the university as the setting because of its familiarity) was clearly a personal jab. Some of the people in my class who know me to be completely silent in class, except the one (maybe two times) I erupted about something particular, so I guess the entire exchange was pretty uncalled for. We were told to let the group finish their representation, so nothing more was said but I kinda wish I had the memory to quote The Undercommons. I wish I could have told him that I can be in the university, but not of it and certainly not for (or in favour) of the University, or as Moten and Harney say, "To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of – this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university" (26).
After having read Fred Moten and Stefano Harney's The Undercommons, specifically their chapter on 'The University and the Undercommons', I suppose I was in the headspace of being critical of the meaning of Academia but also of University (or Universitas) as a institution of dominance.
I'll walk through the entire context that led up to the dispute so I can put this all in perspective:
A group was giving a presentation on the (lack) of media coverage on the Attawapiskat first nation suicide crisis and their living conditions of the community. As they finished their presentation, they asked a question (I wish I could remember it verbatim) but it was basically asking whether a conversation concerning the crisis would be best had in an academic setting, or if discussing ways the government needs to attend to the poor living conditions, limited access to health services, and overcrowding within the Attawapiskat community, could be done anywhere such as on public forums and dinner tables.
The first part of their question about 'academic settings', prompted me to raise my hand and begin a conversation about what exactly made up an academic setting and if it the word 'academic' really meant anything. The group presenting seemed on board with my interrogation as were a few other people in class, but things began to change when I said that "Academia in and of itself was not transformative, but that the people working beyond academia were. Their work could be transformative".
I immediately got some push back from an authoritative member of the class (I'm sure you can figure out what I mean) who insisted that I not generalize academia and take into account the many changes in policy that have happened through the efforts taken up by activists/academics. While I didn't disagree with the statement, I tried to make it clear that I hadn't attacked those operating within the university/academic setting, but rather than system of dominance that is the University (the system, not the actors). I went on to say that I've had plenty more engaging and fruitful conversations about serious issues such as these in bathrooms, in lines for food, sitting on the couch with friends than I have in most large lectures at University. Important conversations can happen anywhere.
But before I could even smile and apologize to the group presenting for taking up their discussion time, a student directly addressed me and said that Academia is important that I "couldn't quote bathroom conversations in an essay or in petition for policy change". On the surface, I could see what he was trying to say but I didn't agree so I said "well, why not? Why can't these conversations that happen in common places have the same authority and credibility as those that happen within the walls of building called the University?"To exacerbate matters, he then went on to say "Aren't you like planning on doing a MA? I don't get where you're coming from..."
All I could do was laugh because clearly he had missed the point once more: my interrogation of academia at that point in time, was not to centre myself or even speak about myself. I had not made it personal by any means but yet, his question regarding my plans of starting a graduate degree (where my inquiry/research could happen literally anywhere but I've chosen the university as the setting because of its familiarity) was clearly a personal jab. Some of the people in my class who know me to be completely silent in class, except the one (maybe two times) I erupted about something particular, so I guess the entire exchange was pretty uncalled for. We were told to let the group finish their representation, so nothing more was said but I kinda wish I had the memory to quote The Undercommons. I wish I could have told him that I can be in the university, but not of it and certainly not for (or in favour) of the University, or as Moten and Harney say, "To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of – this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university" (26).
Thank You for being brave.
ReplyDelete