Tom Liam Lynch :: New Literacies, New Literatures

It’s not only a handful of scholars who treasure content over form. Content runs amok throughout academia. In his book Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind, Gerald Graff (Graff, 2004) describes how the school system—universities especially, but also secondary schools—has become an exclusivist system only concerned with the perpetuation of itself. He draws attention to the problems of academic disciplines, the gibberish with which scholars speak about their scholarship, and the way in which students are forced to play a game of insincere studentship just to get through school. Unlike his contemporary Stanley Fish, who thinks that scholarship is an end unto itself and that’s the way it should be (Fish, 2008)—Graff thinks that scholars have a responsibility to make their work accessible to non-academics. Not dumbed-down, but accessible.

Students suffer because academics yatter with only other academics in mind. In what he calls the Law of Relative Invisibility of Intellectual Differences, Graff (Graff, 2004) claims that “to the non-egghead, any two eggheads, no matter how far apart, are virtually indistinguishable” (7). Despite this yen for elitism, Graff describes how intellectualism creeps into popular culture with greater and greater frequency. College-educated audiences crave intelligent entertainment. In addition, “academic ideas are increasingly popularized, not only by the media but by academic writing itself, as university presses court the wider audiences of trade houses while trade houses increasingly publish academics” (19). So, not only is the populous craving intellectualism, the universities are craving the masses.

Graff then goes on to reveal to us “one of the most closely guarded secrets that academia unwittingly keeps from students” (21). He calls it Arguespeak. For Graff, much of scholarship is a matter of making arguments. But, because students don’t know this secret, they flounder about trying to decode their instructors’ magic spells. He goes on to write that “the first step toward demystifying academia is to start being more explicit about the academic centrality of persuasive argument” (22). Academic culture is more like a volleyball game in which an idea gets tossed back and forth between players. Students, however, don’t see academics played this way because “the game is fractured into so many unconnected courses and subjects that it drops out of sight” (27). Graff sets out to change that.

In response to the popularity of Clueless in Academe, Graff and his wife wrote a guide to academic writing (Graff & Birkenstein, 2005) called They Say / I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. The writing manual lays out a series of templates for students to adopt and adapt in their writing. The templates, the authors argue, help ensure that students frame their own ideas in response to the thoughts of others’, thereby ensuring that Arguespeak is at the center of their own writing. For example, one template might look like this: While some say Shakespeare’s plays are _____________, I think Shakespeare’s plays are ________________. By writing within this template, a student is sure to frame his ideas in terms of others’.

This is where Graff’s astute point about the opacity of the academy starts to wobble. His template method for academic writing ensures students’ ideas are cogent at the expense of the craft of writing itself. He pries apart thinking and writing/content and form, isolating the former and relinquishing the latter. He seems to think that content and form are distinct, that writing and thinking are unrelated. This might be fine with him. There are others, however, for whom writing and thinking are very much conflated.

Part 3 to come next week…

Somewhere in the doctoral process graduate students learn to write like scholars.  They realize that in order to get published or to receive the accolades of their discipline they must write a certain way.  It’s as if there exists a secret scroll on which is penned the sacred law of academic writing: Write to convey only content and do not fall prey to the seduction of form.  If readers are bored, that is their fault.  If readers think they understand you they are mistaken and only have a pedestrian comprehension at best.  To be a scholar, we are taught, is to write opaquely.  Fortunately, the saving grace of scholarship is this: it is only read by other scholars, anyway.

In his book Figures of Dissent (Eagleton, 2003), Terry Eagleton criticizes two theorists on this point.  Post-colonial theorist Gayatri Spivak, Eagleton claims, ignores her readers in the name of her own intellect: “Post-colonial theorists are often to be found agonizing about the gap between their own intellectual discourse and the natives of whom they speak; but the gap might look rather less awesome if they did not speak a discourse which most intellectuals, too, find unintelligible” (159).  Who, after all, would write a sentence that reads, “many of us are trying to carve out positive negotiations with the epistemic graphing of imperialism” (ibid)?  Spivak’s most fanatic reader is likely Spivak herself.  Eagleton’s criticism also extends to Shakespearean scholar Harold Bloom.  “It would be charitable”, writes Eagleton, “to think that Bloom writes as slackly and cackhandedly as he does because he is out to attract the general reader. He is admirably intent of rescuing literature from the arcane rituals of US academia and restoring it to a wider audience.  Even so, you cannot help suspecting that this rambling, platitudinous stuff is the best he can now muster” (169).   In both cases, the scholars’ pens drip pretentiousness.  It’s no wonder graduate students end up writing like windbags, Eagleton might say.  Windbags are all they know.

Eagleton is not alone.  In a review of a now popular work in critical geography (Soja, 1996), Andy Merrifield criticizes the book’s ideas and the stylelessness of the author, Edward Soja.  After trashing several core ideas from the book, Merrifield adds that “maybe the real problem here is Soja’s prose.  It is far too remote and wordy, and often screams out for clear-spoken directness.  His verbosity militates against him really getting down deep, really immersing himself in the convulsions of daily life and in the cracks and marginal twilight zone of urban life. This is where his Thirdspace [theory] resides and it is plainly where he wants to be, but he cannot quite stoop that low” (347).  Ideas are only part of scholarship; the way in which ideas are presented is equally vital.  What do we call that “way in which ideas are presented”?  Some might call it form, others style or representation.  Since content and form are a well-known twosome, we’ll keep them together.

To be continued next week…

Check out my new article on re-reading books with 10th grade students and the accompanying unit plan at readwritethink.org.