The Game Of Academia

A summary of:
Stone, A. R. 1991. Will the existent torso delight stand upwards up?: boundary stories nearly virtual cultures. In Cyberspace: First Steps, M. Benedikt, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 81-118.
(Part 1)

A few months ago, a went on a rant nearly what I telephone phone “the game of academia.” Here’s a scrap of that rant:

*

Academia has risen to an exalted house inwards modern society. Berman suggests that it has achieved this condition because “the scientific method seems to uncovering laws too facts that are incontrovertible” (Berman, 1981: 150), such every bit gravity. What nosotros neglect to recognize is that “all knowledge is ‘situation-bound,’” according to Karl Mannheim, which way that the scientific agreement of the universe is no less valid than whatsoever other epistemology (ibid).

Alas, hence long every bit someone from some respected establishment publishes a newspaper on something, it volition last reported every bit undeniable fact, too nosotros volition believe it. But having read my fair percentage of periodical papers, I am increasingly jaded every bit I realize that most of the fourth dimension academics don’t practice anything interesting. In fact, they rarely practice anything at all. For the most part, they are involved inwards a game that has sure rules that they are every bit good afraid to challenge.

But to play this game, yous must foremost bring together the club. This monastic tell has sure entry requirements. The foremost is: Take everything yous know to last false. This comes downwards straight from Descartes, who wrote, “it was necessary to disbelieve everything I thought I knew upwards to this point” (Berman, 1981: 32).

The 2nd entry requirement for this monastic tell is: Swear your allegiance to the scientific method. Polanyi argues that “in attributing truth to whatsoever methodology nosotros brand a nonrational commitment; inwards effect, nosotros perform an human activeness of faith” (Berman, 1981: 136). But hence it is if yous desire to bring together the club.

It is starting fourth dimension to audio a scrap similar a cult, too for goodness reason. The Definition of a cult, according to Zablocki, is “an ideological arrangement held together past times charismatic relationships too that demands total commitment” (Wikipedia, 20101). Science has ever had its charismatic leaders (Descartes too Newton are only two), too their unfailing belief inwards the scientific methodology has convinced many others to bring together inwards the mania of academic inquiry. And further, those who practice non demo total commitment to the tenets of this cult are shunned from the community, unable to pose out too probable out of a job.

I don’t hateful to last unfairly derogatory, but I practice desire to brand the representative that this cult-like atmosphere inwards academia has produced a foreign behaviour with its members. I mentioned before a game that they larn to play, too I would similar to articulate similar a shot some of the features of this game every bit I run into it.

Dividing too Conquering
The dot of the game is to separate upwards earth into smaller too smaller chunks, too to hence attach your cry to i of the chunks past times doing a ‘study’ on that chunk. Think of it every bit existence the reverse of putting a puzzle together; instead, your goal is to cutting the puzzle pieces into smaller too smaller pieces hence that your opponents (anyone other than you) cannot pose the puzzle together again. You lose if anyone succeeds inwards putting the puzzle together, because yous are similar a shot out of a job. Game over.

This is a caricature of the ‘atomistic’ method nosotros receive got inherited from Descartes, whereby “knowing consists of subdividing a matter into its smallest components” (Berman, 1981: 34). We receive got trained ourselves to cry upwards mechanically. This activity is described best past times Berman (ibid) every bit follows:

The hear is inwards possession of a sure method. It confronts earth every bit a sort out object. It applies this method to the object, in i trial again too in i trial again too again, too eventually it volition know all in that location is to know. The method, furthermore, is also mechanical. The work is broken downwards into its components, too the uncomplicated human activeness of knowledge (the direct perception) has the same human relationship to the knowledge of the whole work that, allow us say, an inch has to a foot: i measures (perceives) a issue of times, too hence sums the results. Subdivide, measure, combine; subdivide, measure, combine (34).

Unfortunately, the reality is that earth becomes incomprehensible the farther it is divided. While academics mightiness earnestly believe they are working towards a coherent agreement of the truth of the universe, it is exceedingly rare for periodical papers to contribute whatsoever profound insight to those who aspect to scientific discipline for answers nearly how they should alive their lives.

Earning Points:
1. The to a greater extent than damage yous define, the to a greater extent than points yous get. Points double if yous define something differently than those that receive got defined it before.
I cannot count the issue of research papers where the only measurable contribution is a novel Definition of a term. But to me, this is real oft a negative contribution, because defining something inwards a way that others haven’t weakens the inertia that the research community may receive got been gathering towards genuinely making some progress inwards the area.

2. When yous are proposing a novel idea, yous may only earn points if yous tin quote some other instrumentalist who has said something to back upwards your idea.
This is a Catch 22, too it surely isn’t conducive to producing radical thinking. But the fact remains, if yous desire to larn published, yous stand upwards a much greater run a endangerment of success if yous tin uncovering people of high academic standing who receive got already said what yous desire to say.

Bonus Points:
1. Earn Buzzword Bonus points for managing to utilisation words that are determined to last ‘hot topics’ (check for updates to larn the newest listing of words). Lose points for using words on a previous listing of ‘hot topics’ that receive got similar a shot fallen out of favour.
Research communities locomote through fads similar teenagers. One twenty-four hours the hot topic is “community building”, the adjacent twenty-four hours it’s “sustainability”, too the adjacent it’s “digital economy”. Most of the time, these damage are hence vague that they are meaningless, but if yous desire to secure funding, yous receive got to utilisation the words that people are interested inwards at the moment.

2. Instantly double your score is to come upwards up with a phrase or a term that gets quoted past times some other player.
I receive got read a fair issue of papers where the researcher seems to last only self-indulgent too is precisely playing semantic games, commonly (it would seem) inwards an travail to last specially “quotable.” The marrow of what they receive got said is no dissimilar from anyone else, but they receive got succeeded if they receive got managed to nation it inwards a wittier way, because similar a shot they volition last cited past times everyone else who needs a reference inwards their newspaper too wants the wittier line.

3. Collect Respect Points from other players past times creating a framework that describes a phenomenon. If yous receive got created a novel framework that is ameliorate than other player’s framework, yous may pocket their Respect Points.
Researchers pass an inordinate amount of fourth dimension coming upwards with a framework, commonly trying to outdo the finally person’s travail at a framework. But what is the purpose of these frameworks? I receive got oft been left wondering how the framework genuinely contributes to the world, because inwards the end, the phenomenon yous are attempting to pose a framework closed to volition be whether or non yous position said framework.

Movement:
1. You may only motion backwards. If yous motion ahead i square, yous must motion dorsum two.
There seems to last no progress existence made inwards academia for the most part. Often times a researcher only manages through their piece of work to explicate why the work is hence much bigger than they had previously thought. The game is increasingly to create to a greater extent than piece of work for time to come researchers past times identifying – commonly inwards the finally paragraphs of a periodical newspaper – what other steps must last taken to brand this research meaningful. But to a greater extent than oft than not, the research dies at the publication phase, too I uncovering myself asking, “What am I supposed to practice similar a shot with this information?” or even, “What did yous project design to practice with this knowledge in i trial yous constitute the answer?” I run into this every bit an extension of the work of dissecting earth – that nosotros are never going to realize this myth of the fully understood world, too the farther nosotros dig into the mysteries inwards this typical academic fashion, the to a greater extent than nosotros uncovering that it is a never-ending hole.

2. Earn some other plough if yous conduct an experiment that is hence specific that yous are the only skillful inwards that area.
A way of generating piece of work for yourself every bit an academic is to carve out a niche. To practice so, many people receive got larn experts inwards incredibly minor fields. Arguably, this type of rationalism is a descendant of capitalist partitioning of labour. In The Wealth of Nations (1977), Adam Smith gave the representative of the pivot manufacturing industrial plant life to demonstrate the regulation of the partitioning of labour. People who had in i trial been responsible for the production of the pivot from start to finish, an entire pin, were similar a shot inwards accuse of specifics of the pivot production assembly line: i would create the top, i would create the pointy end, i would mucilage to the 2 together, too some other would hurting the pins; each somebody becoming an skillful inwards a real specific task too losing sight of the bigger picture, i.e. becoming alienated from the products of their labour.

Similarly inwards academia, people are becoming experts inwards smaller too smaller areas, too dividing upwards into diverse disciplines with dissimilar expertises; too this is to last expected because earth which nosotros are attempting to empathise too rationalize is hence complex that it cannot last held inside i mind.

The work is that this is non conducive to interdisciplinarity or solving large problems. On the i hand, it begs for collaboration, but on the other, it makes it real hard because it requires such a high threshold skill/knowledge base of operations to participate inwards discussions with these experts. More worryingly, I experience (from personal experience inwards research labs too from reading many uninspired periodical papers) that many researchers receive got lost the matter that motivated them from the beginning. For example, yous larn interested inwards psychology because yous desire to know to a greater extent than nearly people, but after several years yous uncovering yourself conducting experiments to decide why some children develop right-handed too others left-handed (an experiment that I worked on inwards undergraduate). The large motivation gets lost somewhere.

If nosotros desire to alter the world, nosotros are going to demand to maintain at the forefront of our minds that motivation. We cannot last satisfied with or distracted or dazzled past times the appeal of picking off low-hanging fruit too becoming an expert. We demand to tackle the fruit at the top of that tree – or rather, nosotros demand to address the entire tree – too to practice so, nosotros demand to larn interdisciplinary too select people onboard every bit a team.

Questions: If yous pull a question, yous must reply it. It volition incredibly specific, too perhaps boring, but that is that menu yous drew.
Most of the time, the research agenda is laid past times the establishment to which yous belong. There are projects that your subdivision deems worthy that yous are impelled to follow because these are the people that pay you.

Berman argues that in that location has been a shift inwards the kinds of questions nosotros enquire these days are dissimilar from before. Berman writes:

So long every bit men were content to enquire why objects fell, why phenomena occurred, the inquiry of how they cruel or occurred was irrelevant. These 2 questions are non mutually exclusive, at to the lowest degree non inwards theory; but inwards historical damage they receive got proven to last so. ‘How’ became increasingly important, ‘why’ increasingly irrelevant. In the twentieth century, every bit nosotros shall see, ‘how’ has larn our ‘why’ (Berman, 1981: 28).

But again, this doesn’t atomic number 82 to an interesting place, every bit far every bit I’m concerned. I’m interested inwards the why questions – or to a greater extent than specifically, the what similar a shot questions – too the how questions are some other manifestation of our demand to dissect earth into oblivion. In fact, removing mystery is non a goal of mine. I’m non interested inwards the how inquiry at all.

And further, I’m non interested inwards highly focused questions. I’m interested inwards the huge questions, the inherently unanswerable ones, too precisely exploring them for the purposes of gleaning pregnant from the asking. I’m non interested inwards individuals either; I desire to address problems that conduct upon societies, if non the world. No to a greater extent than dull questions for me.

I promise to demo inwards my PhD research that all of the higher upwards tin last attributed to fear-driven science, i.e. a climate of fearfulness that permeates academia. And similar with other mental wellness disorders, e.g. anorexia, this fearfulness manifests every bit an obsessive demand for control. As Berman argues, “atomism, quantifiability, too the deliberate human activeness of viewing nature every bit an abstraction from which i tin distance oneself – all opened upwards the possibility that Bacon proclaimed every bit the truthful goal of science: control” (46). For evidence of this pathological demand for control, banknote the next quote from Descartes inwards Discourse on Method (1637):

[My discoveries] receive got satisfied me that it is possible to arrive at knowledge that volition last of much utility inwards this life; too that instead of the speculative philosophy similar a shot taught inwards the schools nosotros tin uncovering a practical one, past times which, knowing the nature too behaviour of fire, water, air, stars, the heavens, too all the other bodies which environs us, every bit good every bit nosotros similar a shot empathise the dissimilar skills of our workers, nosotros tin employ these entities for all the purposes for which they are suited, too hence brand ourselves masters too possessors of nature (in Berman, 1981: 25).
Weber had a tidings for this overly rational mindset: zweckrational, i.e. “purposively rational, or instrumentally rational” (Berman, 1981: 40). Berman continues:

Embedded inside the scientific computer program is the concept of manipulation every bit the real touchstone of truth. To know something is to command it, a mode of knowledge that led Oskar Kokoschka to notice that past times the twentieth century, ground had been reduced to mere function. This identification, inwards effect, renders all things meaningless, except insofar every bit they are profitable too expedient… (40).

But why are nosotros inwards pursuit of such control? And why practice nosotros cry upwards this is normal too necessary? As Manuel writes inwards his Portrait of Isaac Newton,
To forcefulness everything inwards the heavens too on globe into i rigid, tight frame from which the most minuscule item would non last allowed to escape gratis too random was an underlying demand of this anxiety-ridden man…. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 structuring of earth inwards hence absolutist a way that every event, the closest too the most remote, fits neatly into an imaginary scheme has been called a symptom of illness, especially when others pass upwards to bring together inwards the grand obsessive blueprint (in Berman, 1981: 121).

Foucault argued inwards Madness too Civilization (1988) that mental disease is defined past times the times every bit whatever is dissimilar from the norm. In modern society, it is considered reasonable – i.e. salubrious – to seek this score of control, but only because this is the norm. In some other age, nosotros mightiness all last considered lunatics. In the end, to scrap that the somebody who embraces the scientific mindset is mentally salubrious seems tautological, too ultimately a fruitless describe of inquiry. What I cry upwards mightiness last to a greater extent than interesting to enquire is whether nosotros mightiness last missing out on something greater past times retreating into our shells. Why are nosotros hence fearful of the world? Can nosotros non seek a to a greater extent than harmonious human relationship with it? And inwards doing so, mightiness this perhaps brand us happier?

*

What I hadn’t realized, inwards the course of teaching of this rant, was that this variety of thinking had an origin that i could pinpoint! Stone mentions the nascency of a variety of cult of like-mindedness, which I had a scrap of a chuckle at: “…we in all probability owe the project design of the dull academic newspaper to Boyle. Boyle developed a method of compelling assent that Shapin too Shaffer described every bit virtual witnessing. He created what he called a ‘community of like-minded gentlemen’ to validate his scientific experiments, too he correctly surmised that the ‘gentlemen’ for whom he was writing believed that boring, detailed writing implied painstaking experimental work. Consequently it came to hand that dull writing was probable to betoken scientific truth. By way of such writing, a grouping of people were able to ‘witness’ an experiment without existence physically present. Boyle’s production of the detailed academic newspaper was hence successful that it is withal the exemplar of scholarship” (86). The dot of this, Stone says, is that this signifies a novel epoch inwards which “texts larn ways of creating, too afterward of controlling, novel kinds of communities” (86).