Re: GG and scholarship

[Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu>]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Elmer Elevator wrote:

<snip>


> So many critical and scholarly fields long ago degenerated into
> incestuous little communities of 850 people only talking to each
> other, only recognizing the ideas (?) of their approved colleagues,
> meeting each other every summer at the Convention ... but never really
> doing or saying anything that informs anyone's thought or life beyond
> their tight little Invitation-Only Subscription-Only village.

What you're describing here is an issue of professionalism-- a (rather
cynical) view of academe in its professional manifestations: the
 conference scene, the publishing scene, etc. While I'm very interested
(as a grad student in Comparative Literature) in reforming the
professional aspects of academia I think your portrayal is way off.  For
example you say that folks in these circles "never really [say] anything
that informs anyone's thought"... These scholar/professors/instructors are
the folks who are doing the teaching at universities.  I myself (who do
take part in conferences, etc.) have taught over 5,000 undergraduates at
my state university and I don't yet have my PhD. I influence a great
number of people's thought.  Additionally, f_minor was started as part of
my dissertation research.  But it IS a Subsciption-Only village ;-)

<snip>
>
> The tendency is so often to devote their studies to the infinitessimal
> minutiae of their fields. These scholarly communities so often are
> institutionally hostile to Big Ideas or Brave or Surprising Ideas.

I'm not sure which scholarly communities you're speaking of and I think
this is where I have such difficulty with your post. There is a difference
between scholarship (which can be brave and surprising) and creative
repsonse and interpretation (which can focus on 'infintessimal minutiae').
Gould was a creative thinker and a joy to read-- he was not a
scholar/academic but there's nothing wrong with that. A creaky parallel
might be the difference between someone who is an art historian and an
artist who is interested in the history of art, the form and technique,
say of paintings. I don't find that academia is closed off to the thought
of artists at all. One ex-- I was recently at a conference, The
International Association of Philosophy and Literature's annual and the
keynote was the archetect, Frank Gehry.

>
> Most of their energies are devoted to making sure The Wrong People are
> never invited to speak or present papers; the emphasis is more on
> keeping out The Wrong Sorts than on keeping out really bad or
> worthless ideas.

The ideal (albeit hardly acheived) is that ideas circulate at these
gatherings-- freely.  The worthless as well as the brilliant. Yes, they
can be cliqueish but I find that's true everywhere.  sigh.

>
> At some point in scholarship, for it to have worth and meaning,
> attention must be paid to Vigor, or to broadening the base of
> interest, and of -- dare I say it? -- touching the lives, hearts and
> minds of people who are not Professionals and Certified Members.
>

Again these professionals are the ones who are setting the curricula at
universities and defining areas of research in the university and
research institutions. "The Ivory Tower" is a myth.  The University has a
great deal of influence on all aspects of culture (just think of
scientific research-- yikes!).

> If we think about it this way, it becomes very clear why there's a
> hostility among scholars to the notion of Glenn Gould, the Scholar.
>
> Bob
>
>

I have no hostility-- Gould wasn't a scholar but he was brilliant,
interesting, creative, entertaining, etc. Frankly, I'm glad he spent his
time in the recording studio and not in the library!

-Mary Jo