One of the articles LinkedIN has pointed out to me in recent days is Kate Bolick's 5 April 2019 "Everything That's Wrong about the Myth of the 'Dumb Hairdresser.'" In the article, Bolick explicates the trope of the title, the "Dumb Hairdresser," before arguing that it does not manifest as much in reality as might be thought. She states the initial argument after laying out the excellent job prospects for hair-cutters, citing US Bureau of Labor Statistics figures to note both the high job growth in the field and the reasonably decent wage range as she does so. Bolick then pivots to listing professional stereotypes before railing against that applied to stylists. Said railing takes the form of interrogating and dispensing with the patriarchal underpinnings of the stigma against hair-cutters--indeed, against most nurturing work--and examining, if briefly, the sociocultural circumstances that valorize collegiate study--and in STEM fields--above all else. She then focuses on anecdotes from LeMoine that accentuate the value of skilled tonsorial artisans, ending on a laudatory message well worth hearing.
As I read the article, I am put in mind once again of Mark Edmundson's piece that I have cited so many times in this webspace as I have. Even in the first instance of it, nearly nine years ago (and it is strange to think that I have been at this for so long), I find myself opposed to the proposition that the work of the hands is somehow of less dignity and nobility than that of the mind. And I think I feel that more deeply now that my work is less of the mind, even running to cutting hair daily, if not quite for the same reasons that LeMoine and the others Bolick discusses do. There is a great difference between working to make people feel better about the ways they look and clipping a few strands to see what chemicals have been present in the body that built them. Even in that work, though, I find myself working with the work of those who cut hair more normally, trying not to alter or interfere with the work they have done as I do mine. I know that many people's self-concept inheres in their appearance to a great degree, and I know that many of the people I see in my regular work already have enough struggles; I try not to add to them.
I also find myself considering Bolick's comments about the patriarchal overtones that have accrued to tonsorial work. For me--anymore; I know matters differed in my youth, given how much of an ass I was as a kid--getting a haircut is an experience of pampering and vulnerability. I get my ears lowered, as the saying is, and I get my beard trimmed--and I generally get a brief massage and a hot towel treatment, as well. In each, I make myself less able to see, and I put myself into the hands of another whom I do not necessarily know, hands which I know hold blades close to parts of me that would not interact well with them. I know that I am not alone in doing so. I also know that I am not alone in worrying about physical safety, and I have to wonder how many others prefer to have women cut their hair because they perceive women as less likely to enact violence upon them. I do not know if the idea changes anything or how much, but I think it has to be present in the minds of some. Unfortunate as that is...
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
20190409.0430
Between when I wrote the comments that posted yesterday and this piece, I did betake myself to address an earlier LinkedIN article I wrote. I returned to the ideas in "A View on Technical Writing" with "Another View on Technical Writing," noting another model of instruction and citing my own experience as a writer working outside academe. As I write this, the new article has yet to attract much attention, and that is not necessarily to my liking--but I cannot control what other see. I can, however, put myself and my work out where they can be seen and hope that people will look my way; I can make sure that, if and when they do, they have good things at which to look.
It is self-flattery, of course, to make the last remark. I am not entirely sure that I do any writing well; I have to wonder if the opposite is true, given the kinds of things that I have posted to this webspace. Not for nothing do I call it "ravings" first. I do decently enough, I think, in the other webspaces that I regularly address, the Tales after Tolkien Society blog and Elliott RWI, but I still wonder if "decently" is good enough to attract the kinds of attention I would like to receive for my work. Since I have not yet gotten that kind of attention, it occurs to me that it is not, although I do wonder if it's simply a matter of getting enough material together to arrive at what might be called a critical mass. Then again, some folks hit it off to begin with, and that does not seem to have been the case for me, and I wonder, too, if it is too late for me now...
Following such thoughts is not like to lead me to good places, though, and I already struggle enough to keep myself in something resembling a decent place, mentally. Again, it's not for nothing I call this webspace "ravings" first. I ought to keep in mind that I spent many years as a student; I spent long working to improve, long learning that none of us know it all, much as we might want to. If what I have done so far has not earned me the acclaim I would hope to have, it has been practice for that work that will, in time. If I do not continue along the way, then there is no chance that I will stumble into the thing that would bring others to me.
I am not in the position I once was, that institutional structures would bring people to me and give me the change to prevail upon them in some way that would fix me in their memories and allow me the time to make some small contribution to human knowledge that others might remember long. If I am to have such now, it will be because I have made it to be so. And that will not happen unless I continue to work to that end, writing here and elsewhere until I finally get where I feel like I need to be.
It is self-flattery, of course, to make the last remark. I am not entirely sure that I do any writing well; I have to wonder if the opposite is true, given the kinds of things that I have posted to this webspace. Not for nothing do I call it "ravings" first. I do decently enough, I think, in the other webspaces that I regularly address, the Tales after Tolkien Society blog and Elliott RWI, but I still wonder if "decently" is good enough to attract the kinds of attention I would like to receive for my work. Since I have not yet gotten that kind of attention, it occurs to me that it is not, although I do wonder if it's simply a matter of getting enough material together to arrive at what might be called a critical mass. Then again, some folks hit it off to begin with, and that does not seem to have been the case for me, and I wonder, too, if it is too late for me now...
Following such thoughts is not like to lead me to good places, though, and I already struggle enough to keep myself in something resembling a decent place, mentally. Again, it's not for nothing I call this webspace "ravings" first. I ought to keep in mind that I spent many years as a student; I spent long working to improve, long learning that none of us know it all, much as we might want to. If what I have done so far has not earned me the acclaim I would hope to have, it has been practice for that work that will, in time. If I do not continue along the way, then there is no chance that I will stumble into the thing that would bring others to me.
I am not in the position I once was, that institutional structures would bring people to me and give me the change to prevail upon them in some way that would fix me in their memories and allow me the time to make some small contribution to human knowledge that others might remember long. If I am to have such now, it will be because I have made it to be so. And that will not happen unless I continue to work to that end, writing here and elsewhere until I finally get where I feel like I need to be.
Monday, April 8, 2019
20190408.0430
One of the things that LinkedIN permits, and it is not alone in doing so, is publication of articles, usually short pieces, original to the platform. I've got a few out, all dating from 2014 when I was trying to get more things going as a writer; one of them, "A View on Technical Writing," has actually attracted a minor bit of attention. (In retrospect, I likely ought to revisit the piece; it's been a while, and I've had some additional experience since then, both in and out of academe.) I expect that I will need to follow the model of many others on the platform and write such pieces again, though what I would post is not necessarily clear to me.
Trying to do so, trying to figure out what else to write and then sitting down to write it, presents the usual difficulties, of course. I try to address at least some of those through regular practice, such as in this webspace, and I have the notion that I am benefiting from that to some extent. I successfully landed a grant for my primary workplace, for example; I clearly have to be doing some writing rightly. But I continue to feel, as I have noted before in this webspace (and not so much in others, for reasons I think I have made clear), that I am trying to do too many things at once; I do not know that I will benefit from adding an additional task to my day or my week. I do not know that the tasks to which I might put myself will benefit, either, and it would not be helpful for me to put out bad materials in a putatively professional setting.
Then again, looking at some of what gets posted, some of what makes it through traditional gatekeeping to find publication, some of what makes money, I wonder if I ought not to be so concerned about the quality of my work. I wonder if I simply ought to write and post whatever comes to mind there and in more traditional media much as I do here, seeing if it lodges with people in a way that helps me. Sturgeon's Law applies, yet more than 10% of things get rewarded; I suppose there is a market for manure, and I perhaps ought to apply myself to a shovel...
Trying to do so, trying to figure out what else to write and then sitting down to write it, presents the usual difficulties, of course. I try to address at least some of those through regular practice, such as in this webspace, and I have the notion that I am benefiting from that to some extent. I successfully landed a grant for my primary workplace, for example; I clearly have to be doing some writing rightly. But I continue to feel, as I have noted before in this webspace (and not so much in others, for reasons I think I have made clear), that I am trying to do too many things at once; I do not know that I will benefit from adding an additional task to my day or my week. I do not know that the tasks to which I might put myself will benefit, either, and it would not be helpful for me to put out bad materials in a putatively professional setting.
Then again, looking at some of what gets posted, some of what makes it through traditional gatekeeping to find publication, some of what makes money, I wonder if I ought not to be so concerned about the quality of my work. I wonder if I simply ought to write and post whatever comes to mind there and in more traditional media much as I do here, seeing if it lodges with people in a way that helps me. Sturgeon's Law applies, yet more than 10% of things get rewarded; I suppose there is a market for manure, and I perhaps ought to apply myself to a shovel...
Sunday, April 7, 2019
20190407.0403
To continue from yesterday's comments, I remain in seven groups on LinkedIN:
But I am not thus inclined, and I am not necessarily inclined to retain all seven group memberships that I currently have. Again, I am working to make my LinkedIN profile present me as more of a "professional" and less of an academic, since I am, at best, a part-time academic; I do still do some work in the field, but I have abandoned any pretense that it is my vocation or even my primary occupation. At the same time, having a more business-oriented public identity does not mean excising all outside interests. There are expectations of people in the business world, and even if I do not always understand them as well as I perhaps should, it does not mean I cannot try to meet those expectations.
Among them is pride in schools attended. Many of the offices I enter--and not only the academic ones where I still sometimes find myself--show their occupants' degrees. My own will, when I have it. So I think I ought to keep my institutional alumni group on hand--and I likely ought to add that for my undergraduate degree. Doing so would bring my group list to
The other groups need not stay in place, however, save perhaps one of them; they reflect concerns that I have had and may still have, but do not need to make much of in terms of presenting myself as a professional working outside (or largely outside) academe. At the same time, I do need to present myself as having a life outside work, some humanizing thing that suggests I might be more than just the workplace self and so might be a colleague people can work with. Given my predilections, looking at earlier works seems a thing to keep doing; the others seem overly broad or no longer relevant to the non-academic identity I would foster. My list becomes, then:
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- Language, Literature, and Criticism
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- Literature
- Community, Career, Technical, Vocational College Network
- Sigma Tau Delta
- English Language & Literature
But I am not thus inclined, and I am not necessarily inclined to retain all seven group memberships that I currently have. Again, I am working to make my LinkedIN profile present me as more of a "professional" and less of an academic, since I am, at best, a part-time academic; I do still do some work in the field, but I have abandoned any pretense that it is my vocation or even my primary occupation. At the same time, having a more business-oriented public identity does not mean excising all outside interests. There are expectations of people in the business world, and even if I do not always understand them as well as I perhaps should, it does not mean I cannot try to meet those expectations.
Among them is pride in schools attended. Many of the offices I enter--and not only the academic ones where I still sometimes find myself--show their occupants' degrees. My own will, when I have it. So I think I ought to keep my institutional alumni group on hand--and I likely ought to add that for my undergraduate degree. Doing so would bring my group list to
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- Language, Literature, and Criticism
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- UTSA Alumni
- Literature
- Community, Career, Technical, Vocational College Network
- Sigma Tau Delta
- English Language & Literature
The other groups need not stay in place, however, save perhaps one of them; they reflect concerns that I have had and may still have, but do not need to make much of in terms of presenting myself as a professional working outside (or largely outside) academe. At the same time, I do need to present myself as having a life outside work, some humanizing thing that suggests I might be more than just the workplace self and so might be a colleague people can work with. Given my predilections, looking at earlier works seems a thing to keep doing; the others seem overly broad or no longer relevant to the non-academic identity I would foster. My list becomes, then:
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- UTSA Alumni
- Sigma Tau Delta
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- UTSA Alumni
- Sigma Tau Delta
- Mental Health and Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Professionals
- Texas Hill Country Professional Network
Saturday, April 6, 2019
20190406.0430
I continue to look over my LinkedIN profile, examining it in the light of making it a better representation of the me I would see get jobs and offer them to other people. When I initially signed up for the platform, I did so thinking I would use it as a kind of back door to promote myself as an academic, so I joined a number of groups that were relevant to my interests and to my perceived identity as a scholar who had an eye for the outside world--some eleven, as it happened:
- Modern Languages Association (Unofficial) Networking Group
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- Language, Literature, and Criticism
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- NCTE
- Literature
- National Council of Teachers of English
- Community, Career, Technical, Vocational College Network
- Sigma Tau Delta
- English Language & Literature
- Lecturers and Instructors in Humanities
- Modern Languages Association (Unofficial) Networking Group
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- Language, Literature, and Criticism
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- NCTE
- Literature
- Community, Career, Technical, Vocational College Network
- Sigma Tau Delta
- English Language & Literature
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Group
- Language, Literature, and Criticism
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Alumni Group
- Literature
- Community, Career, Technical, Vocational College Network
- Sigma Tau Delta
- English Language & Literature
Friday, April 5, 2019
20190405.0430
One of the articles recommended for reading in my LinkedIN feed as I sat down to write this is Seth Borenstein's AP article "No AI in Humor: R2-D2 Walks into a Bar, Doesn't Get the Joke." The central idea is that humor is one of the most human of qualities, and that it depends on context--which artificial intelligence in its current state fails to comprehend. A number of technologists are quoted about the matter, noting the limitations on artificial intelligence despite its rapid advancement. Some warnings about the possible emergence of humor among artificial intelligences are also voiced. In all, the article does a decent job of presenting the present state of affairs and offering reassurance that at least some fields of human endeavor are likely immune to takeover by thinking machines--for now.
Of particular interest to me is a comment related from Columbia University's Allison Bishop: "computer learning looks for patterns, but comedy thrives on things hovering close to a pattern and veering off just a bit to be funny and edgy." To my mind, the comment echoes the words of another person from Columbia U; I am reminded of Asimov's comments about humor. There is no shortage of ideas about what makes something funny; that voiced by Asimov in his Treasury of Humor requires that a pattern be established and subverted. That is, there has to be some kind of pattern set up so that it can be deviated from--with the deviation offering the potential for humor. The simple deviation is not enough, of course; experience tells that it has to take certain forms and adopt particular content based on multiple prevailing contexts. How many jokes fall flat with one audience, only to have another rolling on the floor?
I have too much experience with such things to be comfortable recounting it. I want to be funny, to have people laughing because I want them to do so, not because they find me an object of scorn. But I think I try too hard at it; I certainly overextend in many of my attempts at humor, making connections that go farther than can be comfortable traversed or inserting a joke into a situation that does not admit of it. And it is because I do not take enough stock of context, focusing on the putative joke to the exclusion of its surroundings--not that the joke is necessarily good enough to merit that focus. So I wonder if the issue is not as much in the artificial intelligence as in other kinds altogether, kinds that are not necessarily accessible even to the "natural" intellect of a great many people.
Even if it is not, I suppose I have to face the fact that I am not good at being funny, even if I do often elicit laughter, and even if I can recognize being funny when I see it. I suppose it's like writing good stories in that; I can find them, and I can make sense of them, but I generally do not do well trying to make them happen. Clearly not, or I'd've sold more of them than I have yet done...
Of particular interest to me is a comment related from Columbia University's Allison Bishop: "computer learning looks for patterns, but comedy thrives on things hovering close to a pattern and veering off just a bit to be funny and edgy." To my mind, the comment echoes the words of another person from Columbia U; I am reminded of Asimov's comments about humor. There is no shortage of ideas about what makes something funny; that voiced by Asimov in his Treasury of Humor requires that a pattern be established and subverted. That is, there has to be some kind of pattern set up so that it can be deviated from--with the deviation offering the potential for humor. The simple deviation is not enough, of course; experience tells that it has to take certain forms and adopt particular content based on multiple prevailing contexts. How many jokes fall flat with one audience, only to have another rolling on the floor?
I have too much experience with such things to be comfortable recounting it. I want to be funny, to have people laughing because I want them to do so, not because they find me an object of scorn. But I think I try too hard at it; I certainly overextend in many of my attempts at humor, making connections that go farther than can be comfortable traversed or inserting a joke into a situation that does not admit of it. And it is because I do not take enough stock of context, focusing on the putative joke to the exclusion of its surroundings--not that the joke is necessarily good enough to merit that focus. So I wonder if the issue is not as much in the artificial intelligence as in other kinds altogether, kinds that are not necessarily accessible even to the "natural" intellect of a great many people.
Even if it is not, I suppose I have to face the fact that I am not good at being funny, even if I do often elicit laughter, and even if I can recognize being funny when I see it. I suppose it's like writing good stories in that; I can find them, and I can make sense of them, but I generally do not do well trying to make them happen. Clearly not, or I'd've sold more of them than I have yet done...
Thursday, April 4, 2019
20190404.0430
In my comments yesterday, I make reference to the "professional" orientation of LinkedIN as a platform. There is a reason I have the term in scare quotes. It can have any of a number of meanings, after all. Someone who gets paid to do a thing can be called a professional at it, although that is not necessarily the only qualifier or the best one; there are people not paid for their work who are somehow still called professionals, and there are some who are paid for it who still are called amateurs. (And that term, amateur, has other meanings that are worth looking into. But that discussion would have to happen another time.)
For the platform, though, I have to think that "professional" means not only "in the workplace," but also "in an effort to get into the workplace." There's a lot of material that seems to be self-marketing, people promoting their own brands and carefully crafted (if not necessarily well crafted) workplace identities. A fair bit looks to be signals to headhunters saying "come find me and make me an offer," while another chunk looks like it's "I need to find a job; this is why I am good for it." Yet another chunk reads to me as "I'm already important; buy my stuff so that you can get hired and be important, too."
There's nothing wrong with that, insofar as it goes. None of it's secret, and the platform is voluntary for use; those who go onto it do so, at least in theory, knowing what they're getting into. Nor am I immune to the matter. I am not actively looking for work, having a decent job already that I like quite a bit, thank you kindly, but I am aware that the job I have might end; I mean to be ready if I have to go back out on the job market. And I remain open to the possibility, remote as it may be, that a better offer might come my way. I do not expect such a thing, though; it seems to me a kind of wishful thinking in which I dare not engage to believe that someone who needs to fill a position would go looking randomly rather than talking to friends and making specific offers or advertising and waiting for applicants, and it seems far less realistic that such a position would be a better one than what I have at the moment. (Certainly, there are things that could be better, but it's still just about the best job I've had in terms of how I'm treated and how it allows me to live.)
As I continue the works of refining my identity and of cleaning up how I present that identity on LinkedIN, where I will be admitting only of parts of myself in more overt performance than is normal for me and for most, I suppose I will have to look at that kind of thing, how I look as an employee and a possible employer (since I'll have to hire people if I remain in my position). And I shall have to wonder if that is the way in which I will be viewed most.
For the platform, though, I have to think that "professional" means not only "in the workplace," but also "in an effort to get into the workplace." There's a lot of material that seems to be self-marketing, people promoting their own brands and carefully crafted (if not necessarily well crafted) workplace identities. A fair bit looks to be signals to headhunters saying "come find me and make me an offer," while another chunk looks like it's "I need to find a job; this is why I am good for it." Yet another chunk reads to me as "I'm already important; buy my stuff so that you can get hired and be important, too."
There's nothing wrong with that, insofar as it goes. None of it's secret, and the platform is voluntary for use; those who go onto it do so, at least in theory, knowing what they're getting into. Nor am I immune to the matter. I am not actively looking for work, having a decent job already that I like quite a bit, thank you kindly, but I am aware that the job I have might end; I mean to be ready if I have to go back out on the job market. And I remain open to the possibility, remote as it may be, that a better offer might come my way. I do not expect such a thing, though; it seems to me a kind of wishful thinking in which I dare not engage to believe that someone who needs to fill a position would go looking randomly rather than talking to friends and making specific offers or advertising and waiting for applicants, and it seems far less realistic that such a position would be a better one than what I have at the moment. (Certainly, there are things that could be better, but it's still just about the best job I've had in terms of how I'm treated and how it allows me to live.)
As I continue the works of refining my identity and of cleaning up how I present that identity on LinkedIN, where I will be admitting only of parts of myself in more overt performance than is normal for me and for most, I suppose I will have to look at that kind of thing, how I look as an employee and a possible employer (since I'll have to hire people if I remain in my position). And I shall have to wonder if that is the way in which I will be viewed most.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
20190403.0430
To return to the idea of LinkedIN for a bit: Given the explicitly "professional" orientation of the platform (despite the "intrusion," decried by a number of users I have seen, of personal information into it), there should be no surprise in the presence of ads spread throughout it. Even as I write this, in my own messaging, there is an ad for an EdD program--and it is bracketed by an ad for an MS in Library Science program. I am not an entirely inappropriate audience for either, to be fair; I have mulled over getting a library science or library and information sciences degree, and I am someone who has some small interest in research into education. But I think that the advertising misses the mark with me--and if it does with me, then it likely does with others, as well.
As I think on it, though, I find that I am not surprised that the LinkedIN ads are not entirely on-target with me. Although I am profligate in what I have added to my feed on that platform--and I probably ought to go through and weed it out a bit--there is a decided slant to my interactions and self-portrayal on it. I have not attended to the platform as I ought to have done in quite some time, so it still shows me as I was when I was trying most to find a full-time position in academia. It is an area in which having additional credentials might be an asset; I can easily imagine having an MLS and a PhD opening more jobs for me, or an EdD and my PhD doing so. And since most of the job experience I cite was and still is academic...
Given all that, I have to wonder how much an academic I come across as being in other platforms. I know I still must to some extent. For example, my other regular blog, the more professional one, still makes class reports, and it does do much to remark on current events in academe, responding to pieces in the Chronicle of Higher Education and others. This webspace notes my continued involvement in academic life, and I am sure there are other indicators that are perhaps not quite as obvious to me but that ring of being written in a velvet-paneled gown and terrible, terrible hat to those whose eyes for such things are keener than mine can be. (Some, such as my usual sentence length and my predilection for semicolon use--or even for using words like "predilection"--are clear even to me, and few of us see ourselves well.) The extent, though, I do not know; unlike many cases, though, I think I would like to know how I come out on that score.
There are things I could do for myself to make such an assessment. It would not be much of a challenge to run a reading-level test on what I write, to generate such a number and compare it to the kinds of writing done by academics and by others to see what my writing looks like in such light. But I would be worried about the observer effect, as well as by possible recursion, so insights into how I read and how far up my own ass I read as being would be welcome.
As I think on it, though, I find that I am not surprised that the LinkedIN ads are not entirely on-target with me. Although I am profligate in what I have added to my feed on that platform--and I probably ought to go through and weed it out a bit--there is a decided slant to my interactions and self-portrayal on it. I have not attended to the platform as I ought to have done in quite some time, so it still shows me as I was when I was trying most to find a full-time position in academia. It is an area in which having additional credentials might be an asset; I can easily imagine having an MLS and a PhD opening more jobs for me, or an EdD and my PhD doing so. And since most of the job experience I cite was and still is academic...
Given all that, I have to wonder how much an academic I come across as being in other platforms. I know I still must to some extent. For example, my other regular blog, the more professional one, still makes class reports, and it does do much to remark on current events in academe, responding to pieces in the Chronicle of Higher Education and others. This webspace notes my continued involvement in academic life, and I am sure there are other indicators that are perhaps not quite as obvious to me but that ring of being written in a velvet-paneled gown and terrible, terrible hat to those whose eyes for such things are keener than mine can be. (Some, such as my usual sentence length and my predilection for semicolon use--or even for using words like "predilection"--are clear even to me, and few of us see ourselves well.) The extent, though, I do not know; unlike many cases, though, I think I would like to know how I come out on that score.
There are things I could do for myself to make such an assessment. It would not be much of a challenge to run a reading-level test on what I write, to generate such a number and compare it to the kinds of writing done by academics and by others to see what my writing looks like in such light. But I would be worried about the observer effect, as well as by possible recursion, so insights into how I read and how far up my own ass I read as being would be welcome.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
20190402.0430
In my comments yesterday, I remark that "I do not think I have done well enough as a professor to warrant reaching out to my students for aid; I do not think I helped enough of them well enough to deserve help from them in return." I know that the comment comes off as somewhat self-pitying--and it should, because it is, at least in part--but I also know what students have written about me across years. There are some who have praised me highly, to be sure, including at least one who took a paper written for my class to an international conference, where it was received well. But there are far more who have condemned me with varying degrees of vitriol--and I have likely deserved quite a bit of caustic remarks made about me.
I look back over such things with mixed feelings, as I think is true for many who have been in the profession. I did not attempt to become a scholar so that I would be liked, necessarily; I did so because it seemed the only thing for me to do, because I had (and have, I confess) a love for the materials I treat that I wanted to share with others, because I wanted to make a difference in people's lives that would go with them. And doing those things does mean that people who would otherwise be comfortable must be made less so, which will necessarily attract some opprobrium. Most folks would rather be comfortable than just about anything else. Disrupting that comfort strikes people closer than they can handle, so they lash out. I understood that, certainly.
There were parts of me--I suppose they are still there, but I am trying to fight them back, to stifle and suffocate them so that they wither away and can be amputated--that took that need to discomfort people as an excuse to be a bully. Many students have written of me that they thought I was more concerned with proving myself smart than with helping them be so. They were more correct than I was willing to admit at the time; they are more correct than I would like to admit even now--but right is right, and I have been a jerk and a bully for a long time, the more so when I was in a position that an attribute that got me bullied could be used to bully others. And I was not a child that such behavior could be forgiven. I was an adult, pursuing or holding one or more graduate degrees; I ought to have known better.
Recognizing that, tacitly then and explicitly, belatedly now, I am filled with chagrin--as I ought to be. I acted badly towards those who ought to have had better from me, whom I had thought I would be better to than I was. I try to be better, but given what I know, I am likely not doing enough. And it is too late for the one line of work, in any event; anything other than the sculleries of the ivory tower is closed to me, and I do not know that I want to scrub academe's pots for much longer. (But I likely will; I still need the money, and there is one school that seems willing to keep giving it to me, at least for the moment.) How much of the lesson I can transfer to other work is not clear to me, but I suppose some of it, at least, should carry over.
I look back over such things with mixed feelings, as I think is true for many who have been in the profession. I did not attempt to become a scholar so that I would be liked, necessarily; I did so because it seemed the only thing for me to do, because I had (and have, I confess) a love for the materials I treat that I wanted to share with others, because I wanted to make a difference in people's lives that would go with them. And doing those things does mean that people who would otherwise be comfortable must be made less so, which will necessarily attract some opprobrium. Most folks would rather be comfortable than just about anything else. Disrupting that comfort strikes people closer than they can handle, so they lash out. I understood that, certainly.
There were parts of me--I suppose they are still there, but I am trying to fight them back, to stifle and suffocate them so that they wither away and can be amputated--that took that need to discomfort people as an excuse to be a bully. Many students have written of me that they thought I was more concerned with proving myself smart than with helping them be so. They were more correct than I was willing to admit at the time; they are more correct than I would like to admit even now--but right is right, and I have been a jerk and a bully for a long time, the more so when I was in a position that an attribute that got me bullied could be used to bully others. And I was not a child that such behavior could be forgiven. I was an adult, pursuing or holding one or more graduate degrees; I ought to have known better.
Recognizing that, tacitly then and explicitly, belatedly now, I am filled with chagrin--as I ought to be. I acted badly towards those who ought to have had better from me, whom I had thought I would be better to than I was. I try to be better, but given what I know, I am likely not doing enough. And it is too late for the one line of work, in any event; anything other than the sculleries of the ivory tower is closed to me, and I do not know that I want to scrub academe's pots for much longer. (But I likely will; I still need the money, and there is one school that seems willing to keep giving it to me, at least for the moment.) How much of the lesson I can transfer to other work is not clear to me, but I suppose some of it, at least, should carry over.
Monday, April 1, 2019
20190401.0430
In an earlier entry into this webspace, I suggested that I might look at my LinkedIN feed for articles to read and respond to, with the idea being that my doing so would oblige me to pay more attention to that social media platform--with the intended effect of making me more overtly marketable if I find myself on the job market again. (I have no desire to be back on that market; I spent long enough looking for work already, thank you. But I am not so cocky as to think I'll never need to do so again. Indeed, I expect to be working until I die; I'm a Millennial, after all, and I know better than to trust that luxuries like retirement will be available for me. Maybe I can set Ms. 8 up such that she'll have a chance at it, though. Maybe.)
When I looked at the feed, though, I found it a jumbled, disordered thing, throwing information at me haphazardly. And it was a strange thing to be so inundated. I am trained as a scholar, accustomed to taking in large amounts of information quickly and parsing it out so that it makes sense (at least to me; I am well aware of the trope of scholars being unintelligible to those outside their fields), and I work in social media in at least two of the jobs I still have. (There remain several, and, while I know it is bad for me to be stretched as I am, I also know that I need the money now; the health concerns that are sure to arise will arise in a "later" that may well never come. And I do have good life insurance policies, even if I have not got health insurance. Matters will be less ill than they might otherwise be when the time comes--and it will come, as it does for us all.) I ought not to have trouble handling multiple streams of data coming in, even or especially if they're coming in from a single source.
Something about how the LinkedIN feed is laid out, though, stymies me. Or else, and this is more likely, I was not as good about curating my contacts and media feeds on the platform as I ought to have been. Some of it has to do with my teaching; there was a while that I asked my students to set up profiles on the platform, and I had them connect to me so that I could review their work. (I had had some thoughts in that line, as well, that I might exploit my connections to them. But I do not think I have done well enough as a professor to warrant reaching out to my students for aid; I do not think I helped enough of them well enough to deserve help from them in return.) As my students have gone on to divergent careers, their interests have changed in such ways, as well, and so my own feed reflects what I have to think is a strangely wide set of influences.
Some of it, though, has to do with my trying to be too many things. One of the difficulties that I have faced--such as anything in my life has been really difficult, with my multiple positions of privilege; I know I've been playing the game that life is on easy mode--is that I lack focus. I have been interested in a great many things, and I've tried to do a great many of them. Consequently, I've not been able to devote myself to some of them--many of them, if not most--in the ways that they have deserved. And so I am less good at them than I would prefer. I'm sure it has shown up; I am not good at hiding things, really. If it has shown up, then I should not be surprised at someone seeing it, nor yet that, seeing it, they act upon it.
We are supposed to change our behavior based on new information, after all.
Some of it, though, has to do with my trying to be too many things. One of the difficulties that I have faced--such as anything in my life has been really difficult, with my multiple positions of privilege; I know I've been playing the game that life is on easy mode--is that I lack focus. I have been interested in a great many things, and I've tried to do a great many of them. Consequently, I've not been able to devote myself to some of them--many of them, if not most--in the ways that they have deserved. And so I am less good at them than I would prefer. I'm sure it has shown up; I am not good at hiding things, really. If it has shown up, then I should not be surprised at someone seeing it, nor yet that, seeing it, they act upon it.
We are supposed to change our behavior based on new information, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)