bradweikel.com

Stanley Fish recently wrote two posts on the intersections of politics and academia. While I agree that Fish's commitment to academic rigor is admirable, and his own ability to keep political views out of his coursework commendable, I've also always felt that he took his Ivory Tower positions way too far (I've also wondered whether he actually has political views).

In response, over at Crooked Timber, John Holbo posted a critique of Fish's long held position that academia should not bother to justify itself to "those outside the [academic] enterprise." Holbo, essentially, is wondering whether academe should be completely hermetic or only partially so.

(On a pretty extreme aside, one of Holbo's other blogs is shared with his wife, Belle Waring, another Crooked Timber contributor. She recently posted some pretty awesome instructions for making a SockDog.)

I wrote a lengthy comment on Holbo's post, but then decided to cross post it here as well, in part to [insert] a clarifying clause that was lacking from my original text...

Regarding the second quote, I have long had issues with this particular argument from Fish.

He claims that “the demand for justification . . . always come from those outside the enterprise,” but this claim doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Sit in on any graduate critical theory seminar, and you are bound to encounter students asking questions [about the social and political use value of their academic pursuits]. Are these students outside the enterprise? Of course not… they are aspiring academics, grappling with very important questions about the social role of the academy.

While I think it is important that students self-reflexively interrogate their own questions and consider whether they really need the justification they’re seeking, Fish isn’t interested in even engaging with the issue. Instead, he more or less says “that question isn’t allowed.” This position is needlessly dismissive and totalizing and, consequently, very off-putting.

-- Original Comment: http://tinyurl.com/44fsp8

For my own part, this refusal among many academics to engage with questions of the political and social use value of critical theory is one of several key reasons I'm not planning to pursue a PhD in the near future. While I appreciate the value of hermetic approaches to academic work -- and am pleased that in the last few months I've finally found myself cultivating that ability -- I still think it is essential that I at least be able to engage with the questions, and have those questions acknowledged and respected by my peers and mentors.