To Be or Not To Be

A little kingdom I possess,
Where thoughts and feelings dwell;
And very hard the task I find
Of governing it well.
~ Louisa May Alcott

...that more or less describes my situation!

~A Wise Man Said~

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
~ Aristotle
Thursday, September 17, 2020
 
Another reason why I was drawn to academia dawned on me out of the blue. Most other work environments seem to have this thing for levelling people. For bringing everybody down to the lowest level of intelligence. The concept of teamwork also in a way tries to tone down individual spirit, tries to bring it in alliance with the team… anyone who has ever worked in a team knows that the team performance is usually down to one or two bright, committed and goal oriented individuals. However, when it comes to giving credit it is frowned upon to credit these specific individuals and if these specific individuals desired any credit it would be frowned upon as going against team spirit.

I see a sort of militancy against individuals who strive to attain higher standards as if others are sort of threatened by this. They know they can never achieve those standards so they collectively have a stake in keeping the standards low. The one who has high standards or aims for excellence paradoxically may be demonised because such people are seen as individualists, against the so-called general “team spirit” whose chief principle is to uphold the group rather than uphold standards. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the group nor do I believe everyone should try to attain a high standard if that’s not their cup of tea or if they genuinely are happy with the mediocre. What bothers me is that to retain a comfortable state of affairs the ones with a “group” mentality think nothing of oppressing those who actually do aim higher or do want to achieve a higher standard or do want to encourage those who are yet to develop any standards to achieve them. That is where the state of the world bothers me, the tyranny of the many or the mediocre seems sad to me.

Coming to how this draws me to academia... There is a lot to be said about the research or publishing world in the academic context as well and it’s not as if it doesn’t have built-in privileges for some or constraints for individuals… however, for the most part, it allows you to be an individual, it allows you to be brilliant, it allows you to be better than the pack, it allows you to distinguish yourself, it allows you to shine brighter than those around you...and not in the social or charismatic or superficial sense which is the only shining possibility other work environments have (which is why it’s doubly oppressive to people who like to work in their own corner). I mean in the sense of ideas and mental output. You don’t get accolades for just submitting a paper or for making an effort or for just trying. I am not diminishing the importance of trying; they are important first steps without which one wouldn’t get to the last. However, I am vehemently against an “everybody gets a prize” logic. I believe giving out the same medal for just competing in a race as opposed to winning it is not fair to someone who puts their blood, sweat, tears into winning, into finishing, into going on in spite of everything. It seems strange to me that to save the feelings of one who competed one would hurt the feelings of someone who put their all into it! Luckily, in academia, you don’t get a medal or a prize for putting out a mediocre paper because, wow, you tried. You don’t get a medal for being a team player or a charmer or a goofy guy who makes everybody laugh. You only get it if your output matches or exceeds standards. Maybe some might prefer the former or find it a softer world whereas I prefer the latter even if I fail or don’t manage to meet standards… I would never wish to have a medal for trying. If I did get a medal, I would like to feel that I deserved it. I guess I would also be motivated to go the extra mile when I know that the extra mile is what counts. I also feel—maybe I am being uncharitable here but I have observed this—that people who do not have it in them to go the distance use soft ploys of goofiness, charm, emotion to worm their way to medals. They succeed too in many work environments. More’s the pity…

Many people like the idea of harmony and comfort so much that they are ready to bear any cost for it. Even critical thinking is viewed with suspicion because obviously you can’t do critical thinking with harmony and comfort as an end goal. That is why this goofiness, charm, emotional appeal, diplomacy is prized over reason, logic, critical thinking, and straight talk. Again, in academia you can’t survive being just goofy and funny and charming and self-deprecatingly stupid. You can’t produce substantial academic outputs with these empty tools. Not to say that a critical or logical personality can’t have flaws… but I can work with flaws of people who are fundamentally critical and logical and have high standards for themselves and others. After all, I am one who has those flaws as well! These attributes for obvious reasons don’t go very well with the type of “team spirit” I mentioned earlier. They are not about upholding the group, they are about upholding standards. In my view though when a group comes together to uphold standards instead of itself, it becomes much stronger for it.

posted by Sylvia D'souza at 3:48 am 0 comments
HOME