Mark Edmunson’s article “On the Uses of a Liberal Education” confronted me on a very personal level. The accusations of apathy and disengagement seemed personal. Even though my own goals for college are primarily outside of the classroom, Edmundson and I would probably agree that my goals and academic engagement should be complementary. I want to grow as a person and as a member of society, to be proud of my morals and to forge life-long friendships.
While I was sitting in the coffee shop, furiously highlighting and scribbling in reaction to Edmunson’s words, a friend stopped by and asked what I was doing.
“It’s so great! It’s about college and how we all just ‘consume’ it and I feel so attacked! I’m loving it!”
Perhaps refuting Edmunson’s thesis, outbursts like this about academic reading are not uncommon on the Williams campus, and the friend (who happened to be a philosophy major, and they all have quite the reputation for being easily incited) jumped into the fun, recommending that I read Adorno if I like being attacked.
I was quick to point out that we had read Adorno—and then I realized that I hadn’t really read it. I hadn’t felt attacked at all. I had dismissed the scholarly writings of Adorno and Horcheimer as angry rantings of old German men. Clearly they didn’t mean to accuse me of defining myself through goods. Obviously they didn’t understand that I was well aware of how I define myself.
This utter lack of engagement is exactly what exasperates Edmunson. The worst part might be that after dutifully reading and highlighting Adorno and Horcheimer without really analyzing their thoughts, I came to Sociology class and enjoyed myself. Just enjoyed. Probably made a few comments criticizing them for being close-minded, probably made a slightly offensive comment about them being way off base. Never, at any point, did I feel attacked, enlighted, or truly personally involved.
What else have my personality and intellectual flaws kept me from learning? I resisted discussing tattoos as an authentic sociological issue because on an aesthetic level tattoos gross me out and I don’t believe that people who get themselves branded with a Nike swoosh or Chanel C’s are really making a statement worth analyzing. I applauded the articles about the mall and how we shop. I loved the Dialects of Shopping and enjoyed being validated—enjoyed knowing that there are scholars who “get it”—who “get” that shopping means something to me.
But how wrong is it to approach the reading packet as something that I can pick and choose from? Why agree to be attacked by Edmunson and applauded by Daniel Miller, while I merely disagree with Laermans and completely dismiss Adorno and Horcheimer. Which classmates am I dismissing? Whom can I engage with more? What can I demand from myself?
I’m not going to just passively consume this class- or any others- any more. Like Edmunson, I want to incite myself and my peers to exuberance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment