http://youngist.org/post/76249124213/why-liberal-academics-and-ivory-tower-radicals-make
by Nicole Ouimette
The revolution will not be cited. It will not have a
bibliography, or a title page. The revolution will never happen in the
seclusion of the ivory tower built by racist, sexist, and classist institutions.
Professional academic researchers in the social sciences of many
colleges and universities exploit the struggles of oppressed peoples.
Oppressed peoples are left stranded with little to no resources after
researchers leave their communities high and dry.
Researchers steal value from oppressed peoples by making them
the subjects of theoretical research without lending them access to
information that could better help their communities. Articles, books,
and dissertations written about marginalized populations are written for
academics, not working people, and as such have little impact on the
people whose lives are the subject of this research. Liberal academics
and social scientists are more concerned about developing the wealth of
academic literature than addressing the immediate material concerns of
the communities they research.
Penelope Herideen is a Sociology researcher in Western Massachusetts
(MA) and a professor of Sociology at the local community college from
which I recently graduated. Herideen has written about the importance of
critical pedagogy in community colleges. “
Policy, Pedagogy, and Social Inequality: Community College Student Realities In Post-Industrial America”
was the title of Herideen’s research discussing the realities that
community college students face as they navigate their social and
academic worlds. Herideen’s research is important, and yet, she was
hardly involved in student organizing campaigns against budget cuts that
affect low-income students. Community college students need resources
developed through research like Herideen’s. This is a major flaw in
academic research in the social sciences.
Liberal academics and social scientists need to understand
their effect on the communities and people they study. Oppressed people
who are put under the magnifying glass of academic research have to live
with real consequences after the researcher
leaves. This is especially true in the field of women’s and ethnic
studies — where class, gender, and race consciousness are a part of the
research process. Researchers leave behind a stranded community with
little to no resources to help them organize movements that will create
real change.
Tim Wise, a well-known anti-racist writer and activist receives
thousands of dollars for speaking at various colleges and universities
about the impact that white privilege and white supremacy have on
communities of color. Wise has yet to give back to these communities in
any real or substantial way, such as offering resources and support to
the various communities he speaks of in his writings.
Researchers in the fields of women’s and ethnic studies entering oppressed
communities without any desire to change serious inequities are in
direct contradiction of their supposedly “progressive” fields. Women’s
and ethnic studies were created out of the social movements of the
1960s. The aims of the people who started these fields of study were to
catapult a movement of better access to education for people of color,
poor people, and women.
These goals were met in conflict with a desire in academia to
concentrate knowledge among groups of specialized elites, instead of a
focus on popularizing this knowledge for the greater good. Try reading
any academic text from your local women’s studies, ethnic studies,
post-colonial studies, or anthropology department. The texts are almost always written so that only academics can understand. Some students and scholars call it “acadamese.”
It is writing that needs to be decoded before it can be understood.
This is what inaccessible language looks like in academic texts written
about oppressed groups, but not for them.
Indian
writer and activist Arundhati Roy discusses the importance of “ordinary
language” in social justice work in her speech given at Hampshire
College in 2001:
I
think it’s vital to de-professionalize the public debate on matters
that vitally affect the lives of ordinary people. It’s time to snatch
our futures back from the ‘experts.’ Time to ask, in ordinary language,
the public question and to demand, in ordinary language, the public
answer.
Roy purposefully
writes for oppressed groups of people by writing in “ordinary
language.” Ordinary language becomes extraordinary when groups of people
who have been historically “othered” are able to read something that
connects to their lives. Academics who use “ordinary language” are able
to encourage oppressed groups to consider their own agency in the fight
for social, economic and political justice. Their advisors and
colleagues constantly berate academics that attempt to write in ordinary
language because their writing is “too accessible.”
Academics
use academic language and jargon to centralize knowledge and power in
their hands. Academics would lose a certain amount of power if everyone
had access to the same knowledge that they do. The division of labor in
the ivory tower reinforces capitalist modes of production through
individualized research and study that is hardly ever shared with those
it most affects. This is how academia operates knowledge in the form of
transactions that create restricted, instead of shared knowledge.
Liberal academics become
gatekeepers of knowledge by reinforcing ideas that knowledge should be
bought and sold instead of shared among communities that are studied. In
turn, serious activists who wish to create a world without capitalism
and other forms of oppression are secluded from their communities
through work in the non-profit sector. INCITE! Women of Color Against
Violence Collective’s’s “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded” touch upon the issue of revolutionary praxis among intellectuals in Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO):
Progressive NGOs use peasants and the poor for their research
projects, and they benefit from the publication - nothing comes back to
the movements, not even copies of the studies done in their name!
Moreover, peasant leaders ask why NGOs never risk their neck after their
educational seminars - why do they not study the rich and powerful? Why
us? The NGOs should stop being NGOs and convert themselves into members
of socio-political movements.
The
fundamental question is whether a new generation of organic
intellectuals can emerge from the burgeoning radical social movements
which can avoid the NGO temptation and become integral members of the
next revolutionary wave.
It is time to stop depending on NGOs and academia to create
revolutionary praxis for us. They won’t. It’s up to us, the oppressed
peoples of the world to demand resources for our communities that are
being studied by those whose lives are spent in ivory towers. The
revolution starts from below and works its way to the ivory tower. Only
then will education be free and accessible for all.
As context for readers: Malinowski, the white man pictured with the
Trobrian Islanders, is famous within Anthropology for establishing the
doctrine that we should not write ethnographically about people until we
have lived with them for two months, coining the term "participatory
observation" to describe how one should not simply observe passively but
honestly participate in cultures before telling people about them. Now,
of course, two months isn't a long time, but think about all of the
journalism, other writings, etc, etc which are written with less than
two months of work.
To the author: There certainly are many problems with academia (and
much of your argument here I agree with wholeheartedly, for
practice-dervied theory), and anthropology, and certainly Malinowski,
but I hardly think he is a great example of what you're trying to say.
In fact, this picture was taken during Malinowski's researchon the
Kula Ring, which established that all economic systems are not
inherently market based or rational, which then formed the basis of
Marcel Mauss' work "The Gift", which laid the foundations for much
applied socialist thought that moved through working class labor unions
over the past century, and continues to inspire "punkademics" and those
of the working class who have meaningfully interacted with
academia/research to dream new visions of possible societies.
I am totally down with this article, except for its reproduction of
the idea that "academia" is some place apart from the "real world,"
which is a narrative that academics themselves tell themselves to
reinforce the belief that they are special and to overlook highly
exploitative labor practices. In fact, although there are some
individuals who experience tremendous class privilege within the
workplace, more and more academic labor is performed in highly
precarious conditions for poverty wages by adjuncts, post-docs, etc.
Which is likely the case for the poor community college professor you
cite, most of whom may indeed have radical commitments but are also just
trying to get by, and part of that - in the academic workplace -
happens by publishing articles in peer reviewed journals from which the
journals - not the authors - make a profit. So, nobody accuses a
revolutionary who happens to work at, say, UPS, or Starbucks, or
wherever, of being disengenuous because UPS or Starbucks are capitalist
institutions whose interests are counter to radical struggles. Same
with the academy - universities, colleges, etc. are capitalist
institutions, and to get by you have to publish irrelevant crap.
OK, so not all those who produce knowledge for academia are class
privileged. This does not change the dynamics of how those knowledges
get valued, exchanged, and shared exclusively. this only further
supports the critique of academia put forth here
I think its fair enough to point out that as part of their job
academics have to present their findings in a form that most people find
inaccessible and often unaffordable. What's not fair enough is to stop
there and not insist that if you are doing this sort of research you
should absolutely have to find ways to return your findings to those
being researched in an accessible manner even though that does mean you
are going to have to work on that as a distinct goal in itself.
If you can't find time for that its completely fair that people would
dismiss any claim to be doing such research in an activists capacity
and if you have no record of doing so those you want to research in
future should probably tell you their time is too valuable to be used
for your career advancement.
Many academics work long hours for little pay as it is. The national
average is 55.5 hours per week for faculty members-starting salaries for
faculty are around 60k after years of training (assuming a 5 year
graduate program and a 3 year postdoctoral fellow and you won't be
making this until age 30) and probably student loans. How much more work
do you expect people who are in academia to do?
Hi Nicole Marie,
I'm just gonna share what I posted as a status update when I shared
your article on my FB page. I appreciate your passion and your holding
our feet to the fire to remain engaged and accessible as academics. But
this article is filled with generalizations that actually make invisible
the work of many radical academics of color that I know and number
myself among. In any case, here's the status update:
"As someone who has recently been called "elitist" by various
'twitter revolutionaries' because I'm a professor, I take serious issue
with this piece. It's filled with generalizations about who academics
are and why and how we do our work. People seem to forget that MLK was a
Ph.D. by age 26.
All the Blackademics I roll with spend a great amount of time
thinking about what it means to do accessible scholarship, to teach
classes that are relevant to our communities, to put work in the world
that matters. Part of what that means is that we do double the work our
white colleagues do, because we have to write the ish that gets us
tenure and write the ish that reaches folks outside the ivory tower. At
least I know that's my life.
The issues are far more complicated than what is presented here. And
far too many of us have worked hard to get our edumacation so that we
could be in a position to give back, uplift and otherwise join in
struggle with our communities; to get there and then be maligned for it?
I'm not here for that.
My degrees don't make me somebody, but they are a set of tools,
impressive useful tools to get important work done in the world. And
people need to recognize and stop trippin.
And as for the the twitter-lutionaries? Half of them are working on
graduate degrees. Lol. And I can't wait for some young upstarts to come
for them in five years like they come for us. #thatisall"
see more
You're right about many of the points you have brought up and I
agree. My closest friends are radical academics who are trying really
hard to not be any of the things mentioned above. In fact, this article
was inspired by my many conversations with them about the problems with
academia in the social sciences particularly, a place where there is
supposed to be an attitude of social change/justice.
I'm speaking to academia as an institution. In every institution
there are exceptions, of course, but that does not cross out the fact
that academia as an institution does more harm than good to communities
who are deprived of resources. There is good work being done, but the
institution still stands as exploitative to poor communities and
communities of color.
I also don't consider myself a "twitterlutionary" and am not sure
what that means. It seems pretty condescending on your part, but I will
say that youth today are beginning to think more critically about their
position in the world and where they fit. I think that's important. I
wouldn't knock us down, yet.
I also agree with a lot of the points in this article. Though there
have been a number of efforts by social scientists to make their work
useful for specific struggles, to channel resources into these
struggles, to follow the lead of community members, and also to make
their work accessible in terms of language and open access, there
certainly hasn't been enough, nor have these attempts produced the depth
of change we need. (The collection "Engaging Contradictions" is free
download and offers some examples of research along these lines:
https://escholarship.org/uc/it....
That said, I do think we should be wary of assuming too big a gap
between "academic" and "ordinary" language. Working class people and
people of color theorize and express themselves in complex ways too!
Some shit is complicated and difficult to talk about and actually
requires different ways of talking. And as you point out, certain ways
of talking are considered more valuable then others and that is
definitely a problem. But rather than scrapping these ways and losing
out on the nuance and precision they afford, couldn't we find ways to
make those other registers more accessible to more people, and let them
decide what's useful and what's not? Rather than assuming what a factory
worker can and can't understand. Just some ideas.
This is unbelievably poorly written.
I love you guys. Please try your revolution without academia, and do
it as soon as possible, because writing about it, you are just wasting
your time, that academics are using to write, discuss and think.
I hear why they are trying to say but I have a problem with this
article. I used to be a great political activist, and I loved James
Petra's "NGOs in the Service of Imperialism" that was written at least
15 years before the critiques mentioned in this article. While while
being an activist might make you feel good about yourself, it doesn't
pay the bills. I lived on $10,000-$20,000 for the past decade and it
started to suck. I am very happy to be in graduate school looking a
profession.
There are plenty of awesome academics. Howard Zinn is one, Noam
Chomsky is another. If you look at the political books on any political
activists' shelf at least half of them were probably written by people
with PhDs. They problem isn't that they are writing inacessibly. Most
labor and civil rights or queer history written by academics is written
in a very readable way. Anthropologists and ethnographers write more
hard to read, but their influence, and numbers, are marginal.
It's fine to talk about changing the world. But when your country
turns apolitical and people stop showing up to any protest that anyone
organizes, it's sure beats being a barista to become a historian or a
teacher, and at least try to figure out what is going on in your world
rather than continue to watch it stupidly destroy itself.
Many academics are having to work part time barista jobs/part time
adjunct positions. Being in academia does not necessarily mean you will
find a professional job. Also, when i wrote this article my focus was
not on academics' salaries, that is not the point. The point is that
academia as an institution does more harm than good. Theory is written
in a very unaccessible way for communities who are systematically
under-educated in this capitalist and racist system that we live under.
I think it's important to understand the implications of doing
research on oppressed communities without giving them needed resources
so that they can be empowered to make change in their communities after
the researcher(s) leave.
The issue I take with this article is that it doesn't consider the
complexity of men and women in Academia. It also makes blanket
statements about an entire community which is ALWAYS problematic. I'll
never understand the necessity to "bring down" another population in an
effort to uplift another. Is not the goal to humanize both the oppressed
AND the oppressor as both suffer from dehumanization?
To make statements like "Liberal academics and social scientists are more concerned about
developing the wealth of academic literature than addressing the
immediate
material concerns of the communities they research" is naive at best.
How do you know that the thesis I'm using isn't meant to inform the
national service project my fraternity implements to create access to
college for young Latino men?
I also find the charge of inaccessible language interesting
considering the language that's used in this piece. I'm certain that if I
took this back to the South Bronx and handed it to my friends who
didn't pursue degrees, they'd feel a bit lost.
Be careful in this type of discourse as it usually leads to a divide to no where.
see more
I don't disagree with many points in this article, but I'm confused
as to why Malinowski and Trobriand Islanders were selected as the top
photo. I don't think Malinowski fit the description herein.
I agree with this article wholeheartedly. However, one important
aspect of academia was left out. I believe that they partly write to
their egocentricities and narcissism. They write to prove their
'intelligence' and not to be well read by the masses. After all, the
average factory worker or other type of layman is beneath them.
I appreciate the article because I think the academy needs to
constantly be under close scrutiny to ensure that that work we're doing
is important and not just random, elitist garbage.
Unfortunately, the academy is now a corporation, a business where
publications are prioritized. While I agree with the author's claims
[for the most part], I think we stray away from fetishizing what we
think activism should look like. Sure, we're all not John Lennon in the
streets with protest signs, but protest takes many forms...even in
academic spaces. There are different types of activism for different
spaces. Sometimes you have to learn the oppressor's language so that you
can cause some damage from within.
There are many academics who are internally critiquing the academy for being a racist, sexist place.
As another commented mentioned below, academics also have to eat and
pay bills. There are many reflexive academics who are committed to
causes and feel connections to many communities. I do agree that we get
too comfortable in the academy, so I think it's important that we always
question why we're here in the first place.
I think we must recognize the sharp different between activists and
revolutionaries. I don't think that we can start a revolution through
morality-powered activism. Activists are labeled as such because they
are separate from "the people" generally, and we can't expect that a few
brave activists are going to change the world more than a academics.
I think we (activists, academics, people) need to be preparing for
change and making change in our own ways. I also don't think that
academic language is a problem--as someone else mentioned, lots of
groups of people have their own complex ideas, languages, etc.
What I do think is important, and in this I agree with the author, is
to be wary of studying the other. It can be damaging and the outcome
may go to helping the wrong people (such as corporate interests)
navigate a disadvantaged group of people (to the people's detriment).
Sadly, besides perpetuating a problematic power imbalance, sometimes the
most concerned academics are the ones doing the worst damage of this
sort.
While the article raises an interesting point, its utter lack of
sentence control and concise language severely detracts from its
argument. Literally every sentence is cumulative, which creates both an
awkward flow and tedium in its repetition. Moreover, the author
overloads some sentences with abstractions; it's as if the sentences
trail off into an ivory tower. Look, if you want to show that academia
isn't contributing to any progressive causes, maybe you shouldn't write
in a way that evinces exactly what skills it provides to any
revolutionary movement.
To be honest, you're proving her point. You're so bogged down in her
"abstractions" and "cumulative" sentences that you're completely
ignoring the powerful message. That's exactly what she's trying to
illustrate.
You're right; I am "so bogged down in her 'abstractions' and
'cumulative' sentences," and I am "completely ignoring the powerful
message." Why? Because this piece is awful. It meanders. It
pontificates. It's hard to read, in the way a five-year old's
handwriting is. As a fellow activist, your goal should be to inform me; I
shouldn't have to wade through the doggerel you've cast down from some
higher point on the mountain of enlightenment. Even Machiavelli and Marx
worded their arguments carefully because they understood that public
attention lasts no longer than the first criticism. The only "power"
behind this article is its crippling of an idea worth discussing.
Without clarity, it's not a message. It's the cry of a self-righteous
martyr that wonders why the world won't listen.
It's "awful" because she's calling out you and your colleagues - why
don't you be honest and say that, instead of playing literary critic?
You've assumed that because Anne criticized the article, she must be
part of the opposition. This lack of compromise and inability to even
consider that those within a movement would want to improve it signals
your inconsideration for working single mothers and cisgenders
Oh, and you forgot to say that the other thing that is "awful" about
it is that it is somewhat threatening to those academics who are very
comfortable with the status quo.
I don't think it's an "awful" point. In fact, I think it's a very good point. It's just terribly, terribly expressed.
Is her writing really that poor? It shines compared to most of what I
receive from students these days. But academics are often (not always)
trained to focus more on form than on substance--especially when the
substance is uncomfortable.
As much as I hate the rigid soulless writing of Academia this article is poorly written.
Believe it or not, you can make an impassioned argument while still having concise, logically articulated arguments.
Though to be fair to the author, the article is written clearly
enough where we don't need to have 15 posts complaining about the
writing style. It's not like che right it lik dis
I think that, in order to promote true and long-lasting social
justice, the will of the masses should be considered. The proletariat
and Hispanic minorities of our society deserve respect and freedom from
oppression,
Seemed pretty clear to me, and most of the people responding above.
I'd recommend you a few more undergraduate summary exercises to pump
those comprehension skills....
This, from some one who disagrees with the argument. You have to
respect people (not pretentious standards) to get respect. And, indeed,
there will be no revolution or scholarship without that kind of respect.
You're proving the author's point.
Just because she doesn't write like a college person, you're belittling her and derailing the conversation.
Your assuming that only a person who goes to college "and writes like
a college person" can be well written or articulate. Way to prove the
author's point, elitist ;-)
What the conversation is about is the impending revolution and those
who are taking away from OUR movement. I'd say people who mislead and
misinform others are just as detrimental as those who would stand aside
in the fact of injustice. .
Since it's my writing you are so concerned about, I'll address it.
I purposefully did not write in a convoluted way. I purposefully
wrote in a way that was more accessible to people who do not have a high
school or college education. If you have a problem with that, then you
have a problem with the entire argument I'm making. Women and people of
color in academia have been struggling with this issue of being seen as a
"bad writer" because they don't write in a convoluted manner. You're
reproducing that same sentiment.
"Convoluted" and "not terribly written" are different things.
You also don't seem to realize how remarkably condescending you are
when you talk about these poor oppressed people's inability to
understand or express themselves using complex language. You also lose
track of what marginalized groups you're even talking about; in this one
comment you threw together people who didn't finish high school and
women and PoC in academia, groups that obviously differ in their
reading/writing tendencies. Talking down to the marginalized and
treating all of them as an interchangable blob of people? I could
attribute it to your inherent disrespect for others, but instead I'll
assume that you just haven't thought very deeply about this stuff and
leave it at that.
And speaking of which, you apparently don't understand that you can
find a piece of writing confusing without it having been written with
the explicit purpose of being confusing.
Whether or not your writing is "convoluted" is debatable but it is
undoubtedly not coherent or logically articulated. I am not an
academic... indeed, did not even finish college but I am well read and I
know the difference between condescending, pretentious, rambling,
over-simplifications and a well thought-out, well organized and
logically articulated essay.
That said, as poorly written as this article may be and despite (as a
member of more than one of the marginalized communities you refer to)
being put off by your condescending attitude, I very much agree with
your basic concern and your critique of institutional academia... if not
the over-generalizations and insults to my intelligence.
I think that we should consider individual freedoms when making such
an argument within a movement. Honestly, if you're going to intractably
defend your piece, then you're doing more damage to the movement. Reagan
mentioned that we should be free from our conscience in making such
decisions, and I believe it applies here.
Although I don't agree with the author entirely, as disqua_MI082ACf7W
points out, you are proving the most plausible of her points: that
revolutionary movements are not contingent on perfect grammar. It is
elitism such as this that excludes the marginalized from conversation.
Do you need to be an eloquent speaker in English to be licenced to have,
and share an opinion on academia. Is that even what the academic
institution is about: to ensure that your grammar is immaculate above
and beyond your subject matter? Because it certainly did not make her
incoherent to many of the people commenting. Whether we agree or
disagree, we have understood what she is getting as.
Honestly, with the exception of some helpful points (e.g. Zach
Blume), I think most of the critical comments below are incorrect and
unhelpful. Of course there are dozens of living exceptions to these
"liberals," and there have been hundreds of books and thousands of other
writings by genuinely revolutionary academics, but the basic point is
clear and correct. Those of us who are active in radical and
revolutionary politics that also work in and on the margins of the
university know full well that the university and our university
coworkers have almost no revolutionary potential. This does not mean
that they cannot be useful, but that is another conversation.
"The revolution starts from below and works its way to the ivory
tower. Only then will education be free and accessible for all." This
could not be put more clearly. Frankly, this piece was much better
written than the comments that criticized its writing. And what
nonsense, that we would even reorient ourselves toward the writing. This
is not to say that writing is not an important skill to cultivate - it
is - but rather that the writing here is perfectly fine. A criticism of
this piece that pretends to base itself in the writing is absurd on
multiple levels.
That said, I would like to hear you follow up with examples of
valuable work by revolutionaries who had some relationship with the
academic world, though, or demands you suggest that we make on those
within the academy who want to be part of a broader struggle. You've
clearly read a lot, and some of what you have read has been useful to
you. What's on your bookshelf? Do you have examples that might help us
identify genuine allies within and at the margins of the academy, or
role models for those of us who find ourselves there? Criticize
everything, ruthlessly, but continue to build the movement at the same
time. Thank you for this important contribution.
Yours in the struggle, intellectual and otherwise,
Isaac
see more
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate both the criticism and support.
Some people I admire who promote revolutionary praxis: bell hooks,
Howard Zinn, Malcolm X, & there are more. But the people who
influence me are the people in the communities I work who walk the talk.
Thank you, Nicole, and most of the commentors, for a very useful and
important discussion. Rather than repeat much of what I found myself in
agreement with, I will only add that most "liberal" academics, in common
with most other academics, never intended to be revolutionaries. They
learned very well how to effectively kiss the corporate ass in grad
school and they seek nothing more than to move up the academic corporate
ladder and enjoy sabbaticals in countries that manufacture their
favorite wines. I know you said that you did not want to discuss
salaries, but salaries at the upper end of the academic hierarchy are
quite comfortable and alluring, and that does indeed matter when we try
to probe why they couldn't care less about empowering the peasants
(including the oppressed adjuncts in their midst, who they often treat
like the "untouchables").
-
It's important to also remember the phrase "the revolution will not
be televised". While academia is very much a capitalistic enterprise, it
is important to not go to extremes and write everyone off. There are
subversive methods of resistance academics can use to inform and aid the
struggles for justice.
Often times such efforts need to be kept under the public radar if
such academics want to keep their jobs (they have to eat and pay rent
too). If an academic significantly contributed to a social movement, do
you think you'd read about it in the newspaper or on a university
website? These kinds of blanket indictments of all academics are not
helpful, and only further the divide between knowledge producers and the
people who could really benefit from having that knowledge.
Education is not exactly the same thing as conducting academic
research. Obviously marginalized communities have less access to
education, but that's occurring at a much larger institutional level,
not because researchers swoop in and steal all the knowledge. Knowledge
is generated: it's not a zero-sum game.
Also: research isn't done solely to publish papers. It's done to
inform how grants - both federal and private - direct their money toward
relevant causes.
It's clear that education needs to be made accessible to everyone,
but that doesn't mean that academics should be told to shut up.
Also,
Amazon.com's
blurb on Dr. Herideen's book: "Dr. Herideen proposes structural and
instructional innovations so that educators, administrators, and
policymakers can remedy rather than reproduce existing social
inequities." Sounds to me as though Dr. Herideen is in fact
disseminating her research so that it can inform ways to fix a broken
system.
Ivan Illich diagnosed this problem and wrote about it 40 years ago.
There's some valid points here but it seems highly hypocritical.
Without the ivory tower radicals that she's demonizing, would she even
think critically about these issues on an intellectual level? I.e. isn't
it these so-called academic elitists that provided her with the
intellectual framework that allows her to make these assertions. Perhaps
those that live in/attend ivory towers shouldn't throw stones? Besides
that, approachable language doesn't have to mean written by an 8th
grader as this article apparently was.
Oppressed peoples have been able to think about their oppression
before the inclusion of critical social theory into academia. I would
challenge you to think about the ways that certain knowledge is produced
and reproduced in academia. Oppressed people know that we are oppressed
and we know why, how, and in what way. We don't need academics to tell
us what racism, sexism, or classism is -- we already live it.
*There are, not there's. Yikes
Your critiques are valid but you are not actually proposing any way out.
Justin, the whole article is about a way out. We need to write in
ordinary language and make our research accessible to the communities we
write about.
P1: The Revolution will not be cited, nor happen in academia.
Revolutions, true paradigm shifts occur when new ideas become more
popular than the old ones. The enviroment most likely to produce such is
academia.
As for the dispensation of said knowledge, that is a
matter of legislation and civic management, which is not part of the
academic process, but over which it exerts control.
Funding for
research projects comes with dictates on behavior, and if we demand
moral stances and selfless activism from academics we must understand
they are human beings with all the limitations and faults that implies.
If the system does not support such actions then they are less likely to
occur.
P2: Researchers steal value...
val·ue
[val-yoo]
noun
