I find Boyd's account of his struggles within the university sphere both revelatory and sobering in many ways. In the article, he quotes Knoblauch's critical question, "Is critical teaching [and scholarship] anything more than an intellectual game in such circumstances?" Perhaps we all feel a certain tinge of dissatisfaction with the hypocrisy of enjoying the material benefits of a system that we wholly disagree with. Not to sound too critical of the article though, at a certain point it does read like a page of 'dear diary', but maybe that's just me. Perhaps this is symptom of overinflating the idea of the classroom as a site of resistance. Not that it can't be, but it has its limits. I feel that some academics may romanticize the classroom in the way certain conservatives romanticize the free market as a place where magic happens. Once you realize these limits, you may feel a sense of disenchantment that he echoes in his piece. As critical theorists, one shouldn't make this mistake. Helping to get students to question the system they are in and publishing papers critiquing it are important, no doubt, but if you really believe the system should be changed, your actions shouldn't end at the classroom and the journal. Do what you can within your sphere of influence, and don't let the system tell you that you need to only stick to certain circles and your responsibility is fulfilled.
Why are you critical thoerists? My argument is that this is a moral question, a question of conscience. And I feel this week's readings have brought the topic full circle.
Why are you critical thoerists? My argument is that this is a moral question, a question of conscience. And I feel this week's readings have brought the topic full circle.
Comments