[iDC] (no subject)

[Kevin Hamilton]

Brian, thank you for for time on this response. In my opinion, you've 
presented an argument here instead of a declaration, and one that opens 
up the possibility of informed debate. For me at least, and I hope for 
others, it serves as an education, though I recognize your arguments 
here from other posts and writings, so it's not all news to me. I 
acknowledge too that the brevity of your first (no subject) post 
reflects a position in its form and tone as well as content. I just 
didn't think that the content of your intervention would be clear to all 
(it wasn't wholly clear to me) and now I think it's clearer. Thank you.

As you reminded us here but should be stated more explicitly, there are 
many missing viewpoints in this discussion if we're looking for a 
debate. Some of what has been debated in this thread has, admittedly, 
been not only small in scope compared to the debate you provoke, but 
irrelevant in the context of larger contexts. I recall, for example, how 
in the previous thread on PhD's, we heard a description of the current 
state of education in Palestine. It's all too easy for us to move on 
from that. ("There but for the grace of God go I," professors might have 
said in another day.) It's all too easy to move on from that because of 
the foundations of our institutions, the implicit and explicit purposes 
of our schools, and the inadequate ideals we bring to it as individuals.

Whether or not my department teaches C++, or includes Ranciere in its 
curriculum, or utilizes blogs in the classroom, matters little in light 
of the larger question of what function a university should, can or will 
serve. As Saul has pointed out, it is possible to discuss the merits or 
pitfalls of particular disciplinary configurations without every 
touching a real concern that shapes life. Though charging academics with 
irrelevance is a familiar and easy route, I'll admit that it is often 
called for. In my short years - I was in High School when you moved to 
France - I have not yet experienced an example of a University that 
sustains itself on a mission other than rewarding and promoting 
self-interest and increased power on the part of graduates, 
administrators and faculty members. I'll even admit to skirting this 
fact, on this list and in the classroom, in the interest of inquiry, in 
the interest of promoting discourse or dialog that is missing, and on 
weaker days, in the interest of self-preservation.

But since you've framed the problem existentially, I'll put it back to 
you existentially - can't collective inquiry into the effects of small 
decisions on the world be more than self-justified indulgence or 
delusion? Is it only being nice or 'making do' to address problems short 
of global in scope? If I turn to one of my more pressing questions about 
curriculum, academic policy or theory, and ask "Will this address the 
larger problem of the malicious intent of my employer, my country, and 
perhaps myself?" then the answer is clearly no. But if I look to 
modernity for new models of action and effectiveness in response to this 
problem, I don't think the alternatives are clear.

We've been taught to put new systems and machines and representations to 
work in support of achieving the society we desire, but enough money and 
power seems to be able to adapt and adopt any system we propose. So we 
need new models for acting, awakened sensoria, and spaces to speak with 
clarity and confidence about what's wrong with the present. I was taught 
that learning such new ways of seeing and being requires that I try 
things on the short-term and the small scale; push material around, 
reflect with others, engage and highlight contingency, push some more, 
and look to make it stick when it works. This sloppy and privileged 
methodology can only be improved, can only be reminded of its impact and 
dependency on others, through practice, no? This is why it's too bad 
that Luis couldn't recount any more details for Saul of his experiment 
(at least on the list, that I know of.) I understand why some, why 
perhaps Luis, might be loathe to lend a hand to the reflective process 
of a broken and even colonizing entity. But where are we to go then, if 
we don't at least talk together and experiment and try to learn, with as 
much caution and loud warnings as possible?

To attempt to build on what Luis learned could be to try to absorb 
critique into the worst sort of progress. Is that all it could be 
though? I am under no illusions that the innovations or reconfigurations 
I desire or pursue will win against the dominant priorities and forces 
that guide my employer. I wish I would even have to worry about what I 
might say here on this list, but I am confident that none with 
significant influence in my institution would read this far, if they 
would even read this list or archive at all. But wouldn't my leaving or 
standing against this place be simply employing symbol against symbol? 
Please forgive my ignorance on the philosophy and strategy of collective 
action, but how is refusal in this case less instrumental, hubristic, or 
even less self-serving than speculative experiment and discourse?

I will not call your initial intervention rude, I only queried its 
intent for the audience of this list, and I think you have generously 
answered this query. I will only add this more - that though the forces 
that govern our educational institutions are old and strong, we also 
have in our favor the questionable asset of modernity's constant 
revolution of process and method. I mean to say this - that in my field, 
in my experience at least, the processes and priorities from one 
generation to the next are so different as to constitute a whole new 
daily climate every ten years. I can look around and see senior 
colleagues who have certainly been beaten into submission or 
complacency. But I also see my peers behaving and acting in wholly 
different ways than I know my predecessors did, at least according to 
the record and evidence. My hopes are no better that we'll fix this 
broken machine, but I at least have  confidence in no small number of 
peers who value reflection in the service of justice and equity, and not 
solely in service of self-congratulatory ethics. I guess we'll have to 
prove this through deed - I can guess that it won't look very large, and 
it might not last long. If that's complacency or concession, then I 
don't know what else there is, besides utter defeat or abandonment. 
Perhaps I'll join you in France yet.

Thanks again for the challenge. I'll keep thinking about it.

Kevin