I found both the article "A kind word for bullshit" and the book "On bullshit" a bit empty and over-saturated with adjectives for a term that is hard to pinpoint. It seems to me that bullshit is a "polite duck/exit" out of a dialogue/situation that a person knows little if nothing about. The exit is followed by filler words or in the case of academic settings more " intellectual,prestigious vocabulary" that sort of jumbles the brain of the person being bullshitted to into a frenzy of a confusing play on words. I thought the quote listed above was interesting because it was the one of the most honest realizations within the nine page article. Hopefully this article along with the book "On bullshit" will provoke some sort of personal reflection,particularly among students and professors. From my perspective, bullshit within the academic setting or even personal writings (such as Amy Tan and Barbara Mellix) stems from the societal and personal pressures/expectations to be smarter, more clever, or more scholarly. I wonder what would happen if we removed that pressure and allowed a more natural,observational flow to navigate our writings? Perhaps maybe bullshit would occasionally slip through the cracks of our subconscious state but at least our voices would be a little more authentic, real.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
On Bullshit...Blog 2
"Academics...believe their own bullshit. They hide behind language that may be as slight, or exaggerated...academic writing very seldom aims to deceive the reader about its content, but it certainly is meant to enhance the reputation...of the writer...resulting in tangible rewards for academic tenure,promotions, grants,etc."(Eubanks&Shaeffer 382-83).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the way you define the term. I think there will always be "pressure" until one is able to develop mastery over the discourse in question and then be an "insider" and not an "outsider." Barbara Mellix achieved that mastery, hence the title of her essay, "From Outside, In." More important is the point that Schaeffer and Eubanks make about "sincerity." If one's goal is to be "sincere," and not misprepresent oneself by using "filler words" thought to sound "intellectual" and prestigious", that will help, won't it? You're thinking about your struggles with reading published academic discourse. I'm thinking about my (painful) struggles trying to read the tortured prose that some students compose trying to sound "smarter, more clever, or more scholarly," thereby misrepresenting who they are -- BSing.
ReplyDelete