Campaigners and Academics

Picking up from where I left off yesterday, one question I often wonder about is can campaigners be good academics? Or are they too sure about their beliefs to keep an open mind, which is vital for research? I have met some intelligent academics who are not open to new ways of thinking at all. Marx's famous quote exhorting historians to not just interpret the world but to change it comes to mind. Is trying to change the world  by interpreting it an impossible having-you-cake-and-eating-it goal?
I don't think so. At the outset, I must confess that I am instinctively not a campaigner, which I put down to my personality. I don't consider myself an intellectual whose time is better spent intellectualizing rather than knocking on doors. My discomfort with campaigning is purely down to my introverted personality.
But, I do believe academics can change their (corner of) the world while interpreting it. I wouldn't pretend to be able to teach my students to think for themselves (assuming I can think for myself) but at least I don't get in their way when they do. I fight the temptation to correct them immediately when they say something wrong and allow them to finish.  And, from the feedback I have received, being generous in spirit and approachable by nature are underrated attributes for teachers. The job of a teacher is not to have students in their thrall, hanging on their every word, but to open new worlds for them. 

CLass workshop

I attended a workshop to train us in communicating progressive ideas better to the public. It was primarily aimed at campaigners, and while I have never knocked on doors in my life, the chance of attending a left-wing event  in Bristol lead by a woman of colour and with a fair number of presenters of colour, was too good to miss. I couldn't say I had a great time. One of the sessions was on austerity and as an economist, one has to watch people mangle economic concepts. And the one time I made a point, it was treated with undisguised skepticism by a man who I am pretty sure didn't  know anything about economics. If I had told him I am a PhD student in economics, maybe he would have believed me. Maybe it was stupid of me to raise technical points in a debate about marketing tactics. I don't know what I really expected from the event but I had company, so I went.
Henceforth, I am not going to attend discussions on economics with laypeople unless I am the one presenting or invited as an expert. This might sound downright snobbish, but sitting in on lay people discussing economics is a profoundly frustrating experience. Stepping in and correcting people makes one feel like a show-off or know-all. 
I am two years into my PhD and do believe there are topics on which I can speak with reasonable authority.

Post-Colonial Theory and Brown Men Hugging

I attended a lecture on post-colonial theory by a world-famous academic at Bristol uni last evening. He is orignally  from Bombay so I attended partly as gesture of South Asian solidarity. Post-colonial theory is notoriously dense, and I was prepared to be left scratching my head. The speaker spent an inordinate amount of time specifying what he was NOT saying because all those things he was not saying seemed identical or extremely close to what he was saying. Nuance on steroids. I was also a little peeved by neologisms, my favourite one being intutionism.
But there were a few redeeming features of the evening. One, was the sight of the academic and his host, who is turns out is quite well-know in his own right, hugging at the start and end of the literature. Two elderly brown men, one Indian and the other Pakistani, hugging each other wholeheartedly in one of  the temples of British academia. The British shudder at the prospect of eye contact, much less physical contact, so I am sure these men were making a statement.
The other redeeming feature was the wine, of course. I often feel like I lost my taste for alcohol after Dengue Round 2 but yesterday it went down pretty smoothly and I was happily tipsy with just  two glasses. 

Platonic Friendships

Yesterday, I read a screed about how men's inability to express their feelings to other men lead to women having to play the role of therapists to the men in their life. Most of the examples were of women playing therapist to their romantic partners. I don't disagree with the basic contention of the article. But, the thrust of the article was that men should feel comfortable expressing their feelings to other male friends instead of burdening the women in their life. While I have written before on benign masculinity--how even men who reject toxic masculinity have a hard time being emotionally open with other men, instead preferring the company of women. But, my problem with the article was that it completely ignored platonic relationships between men and women. Maybe  the author sees such platonic relationships as also emotionally burdening women. But the fight against patriarchy must involve pushing the envelope on possible relationships between men and women. And not simply telling men to deal with their own shit among themselves.

The World As A Scary Place

I was watching a movie about life for black boys in a rough neighbourhood of Los Angeles in the 1980s and the endless cycle of violence that most men were/are trapped in. At the end of the movie, there is a dialogue about how the American news shows paint foreign countries in conflict as hell on earth, while  ignoring the war-zones in their own country.
The world has become a scarier place in the past five years. While watching the movie, it occurred to me that the world has always been a scary place for disadvantaged groups--for  blacks in the US and most other countries in the West, for Dalits and Muslims in India, etc. But I say this without any guilt or any remonstration to myself to toughen up. Yes, I come from a world of  privilege, and I don't take my privileges for granted. But, all of us deserve to feel home in this world, even if, in reality, there are many worlds. One can beat oneself to oblivion about how one is complicit in perpetuating a system of privilege without making a jot of difference to that system of privilege. People who are too busy beating themselves up don't have much time for other things. Or one can accept that by merely existing, one is complicit in perpetuating the dominant order, unless one is an outlaw. And, then move on to how best to be kind, starting with yourself and the people around you.
As an aside, it says something about this world when even the privileged start to find it a scary place. Revolutions seldom happen as a fell swoop, all though they are remembered as such. We may be in the midst of a revolution but will only be able to recognize it as one in hindsight. 

No Good Deed ...

I have always thought of myself as not being particularly disposed to acts of kindness. As a self-absorbed person, I tend to put my well-being first. That is my first reaction when faced with the potential for inconvenience, and I make no apologies for it, because that is how I am wired. But a first reaction need not be the final response. On reflection, I often do decide to inconvenience myself for the sake of others, especially for friends or family. Yes, there is a large gap between what I would do for a friend/family compared to what I would do for an acquaintance. But, sometimes it is better not to be over-generous and then resent yourself and the target of your generosity later. 

Yesterday, I performed an act of kindness and I thought long and hard prior to it. The good deed did go unpunished, and in fact, was rewarding. While I was performing that deed, the thought of a similar good deed to another person came to my mind, but I didn't do it. And, I don't feel guilty about it. There is a lot of sadness and misery in the world, and, as individuals, we can but play a small part in alleviating it. In seeking to alleviate it, one must be careful not to give so much that one ends up adding to the pile of misery. "Ultimately we are first responsible for our own happiness". As someone who is prone to guilt, I am not sure I believe this statement fully. But, I do know that people prone to guilt beat themselves up a lot for not being nicer or more giving. Less sensitive souls don't give these things that much thought.

Flirtation and Sexual Harassment

How much of yourself can you be if the opposite person construes that as an invitation for flirtation or romance? When does mutual flirtation turn into sexual harassment? Obviously when one of the parties feels uncomfortable. But can that discomfort be expressed without damaging relations or other repercussions? Some people are better than others in setting the tone of their relationships and expressing discomfort. There are others who are more passive in setting the tone of their relationships. And, should a person who has suffered sexual harassment treat her harasser coldly in the future. And, if she doesn't,  is that proof that she didn't  really suffer harassment. Should she be in a permanent state of nervous fury and never ever exchange pleasant words with her harasser? In such matters, the  dice is loaded against the weaker, or lets say, more passive party. The one who is  prone to not rock the boat. Any action save anger towards her harasser is taken as proof that she wasn't really harassed. How does one establish boundaries if its not one's nature to be assertive? Or should they be enshrined in a workplace code?

Then, there are cultural differences too. An invitation for  romance in one culture might just be banter in another. Again, this argument is often marshaled  in defense of the harasser, who is usually a man. Cultural faux pas are less grave than sexual harassment. 

I am aware I have asked more questions than answers, but such us the topic.