Comments on: Still thinking about graduate school in the humanities?

By: meika

meika — Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:52:39 +0000

Remember its all schizo as wel as alienated

marketing seeks to direct consumption by offering to indulge your desires

that is consumption of goods produced by alienated labour

this i weird division, some can do it pragmatically, some can fake it, some actually enjoy it (alienation that is)

me? I can’t do it, i can’t fake it, and i have no idea if would enjoy it

The ‘authentic’ me is rejected by Mr Economy even as he (seeks to) make(s) me.

Its a battle i can only loose

By: chutney

chutney — Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:39:48 +0000

I’m thinking about the administrivia and general ethos of the humanities than any one discipline or professional organization. Whatever extent the debate extends to, it hasn’t translated into changed practices. It isn’t a matter of what’s good for the disciplines or the faculty; it’s a matter of what’s ethical treatment of graduate students. Expecting graduate students to risk probable genteel poverty for the sake of the disclipline and the faculty is precisely the problem.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:29:16 +0000

It may be that unalienated labor is an “idol of the humanities,” but a couple of points are worth acknowledging:

1. Most of us on the margins of academia don’t need to fantasize about ‘unalienated labor.’ We can just look down the hall, at, for example, the professor who got tenure 30 years ago without a Ph.D. and who has never published. At the faculty who haven’t taught a first-year course in a decade, yet still insist on micromanaging the curriculum. At faculty who have never taught more than 2 courses in a semester. There is an extensive debate on professionalization in the humanities that actually dates this with some accuracy, and it’s within my lifetime.

2. I don’t know what discipline in particular you’re thinking of, but the idea that there’s an ‘absence of prophetic self-critique in the humanities,’ especially in the literature departments, doesn’t seem especially accurate.

3. It’s also not even accurate to say that this critique only comes from the edges; after all, each of the last 3 or 4 MLA presidents have taken up precisely this problem. The problem is that there’s a split between what’s good for the institution (more graduate students & adjuncts = low labor costs) and what even the faculty increasingly recognize as what’s good for the discipline, for the faculty, and for those self-same graduate students.

Thanks again for the interesting post!

All the best,

Jason

By: Invisible Adjunct

Invisible Adjunct — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:57:34 +0000

Sorry — I meant c-section as paradigm of alienated labour

By: Invisible Adjunct

Invisible Adjunct — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:56:10 +0000

Not to sound snarky, but: I’m not a Marxist, and don’t feel bound to use Marxian terms in accordance with your interpretative framework.

When I speak of alienated versus alienated labour I am speaking (in an admittedly loose way) about the relationship between the labourer, his or her labour, and the product of that labour. Unalienated labour refers to labour and its product as a kind of self-expression of the labourer. There probably isn’t any example of purely unalienated labour, but I do think there are degrees of alienation. Flipping burgers at McD’s, eg, is a more alienated form of labour than writing a poem.

My point about the academy is that is does hold out the promise of something that comes close to unalienated labour, and sometimes even briefly delivers on this promise. This is one of the main reasons for its hold on people (god knows it’s not the money!). But it does so within the context of conditions of growing exploitation and alienation.

I don’t get why you would see a c-section as the paradigm of unalienated labour when you refuse to allow pregnancy and birth as forms of unalienated labour?

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:02:11 +0000

OK, back.

As far as nurturing an infant goes, even the most benighted vulgar Marxist (who might very well be me) would have to admit that pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding are all human activities that are prior to, ie, are not constituted by, the division of labor. The state of technology and capitalist organization can impinge upon them, even drastically–eg, unnecessary caesarians, encouraging the use of formula rather than breast milk–but…well, hmm, unnecessary caesarians are ghastly, and can’t be completely put down to material/economic forces (unless you count purblind medical patriarchy as a material/economic force). So much for a strictly old-fangled about child rearing being strictly prior to society. Sorry. OTOH, that it’s not strictly prior to society does mean that it can be an alienated activity or experience. Hell, maybe the unnecessary caesarian should be the paradigm of alienated experience.

My apologies if this has decended into terrible gibberish. A bête noir of mine is the loose use of certain Marxian terms. Maybe–well, probably–a division of labor where alienation is transcended is impossible (and I believe the transcendence of alienation under a division of labor is the point of the famous/notorious passage about fishing in the morning, criticizing in the evening; specialized activities and production are still necessary, but they no longer dictate the identity of an individual), but a vision of what life beyond alienation might be is necessary to understanding the dimensions of what our actual alienation is.

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:31:53 +0000

I hate to be a pain, but I’m pretty sure that neither academic life nor rearing an infant fall under unalienated labor. This isn’t meant to denigrate either as much as to point out what would constitute unalienated labor (on my understanding at least) as well as point out the spheres of human activity the term doesn’t cover.

First, whether or not labor is alienated isn’t a matter of one’s disposition towards what one does–just as whether one is exploited or not isn’t a function of how much one earns; rather, it’s a consequence of the system and conditions under which one works. I may like what I do under the division of labor very much, but in that it is my exclusive function in the economy from which I turn at my risk, my labor is alienated. That academic work holds out the promise of doing what you love is fine, but in so far as there is the compulsion or felt necessity to do so, ie, in the words of Invisible Adjunct, “when you do go fishing, you can’t really fish, because you’re too busy fretting about the criticism you should be doing instead,” your labor stands as a alien power over you and is alienated labor precisely on Marx’s account. The internal dynamics of how one experiences this may not be–and likely aren’t–felt as economic compulsion: I’m not going to say that you feel this way because you’re directly concerned about whether you’ll have your contract renewed for the coming academic year or that you feel another paper might give you the chance for a tenure track position. But regardless of the particular subjective content, the compulsion to maintain a particular role is sustained and reinforced by organization and institutions formed (or maybe deformed) by the division of labor.

And speaking of the division of labor, I’m going to be late for my daily bout of exploitation unless I’m out the door now. Fortunately, once there I’m not very well supervised, so more in a bit.

By: Public Opinion

Public Opinion — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:44:16 +0000

University reform
My pre-occupation with renovations has meant that my eye has slipped from domestic public policy issues. Maybe they’ve gone quiet

By: Invisible Adjunct

Invisible Adjunct — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 03:43:26 +0000

Interesting comment. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the closest I’ve come to “unalienated labour” was through the experience of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding. That was pretty much “unalienated,” and at times frighteningly so. It made me fear for the loss of individuality and autonomy: in short, for the loss of a modern sense of self. Turns out the loss was only temporary, I came back with a vengeance, as cranky and critical as ever.