First, on Fish’s “black and white view of how scholars fit in the world”: It’s equally clear that he believes academics should be able to “tell the difference between a soapbox and a teacher’s podium” (96) and that he isn’t out to proscribe anyone’s political engagement.* A soapboxer that Fish describes is an urban researcher, activist, “former academic” named Paul Street, who “complains that by conceiving the academic task so narrowly, [Fish turns] professors into ‘good Germans, content to leave policy to those who are ‘qualified’ to conduct state affairs–people like George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.” Even if most academics would share Street’s political views, “does that mean that the educational experience of our students (many of whom hold opposing views) should be guided by them [i.e., those views]? [. . .] In a classroom, the gathering of evidence on the way to reaching a conclusion is the prime academic activity. In Street’s classroom, that activity would have been abandoned from the get-go; for him, the evidence is already in and the conclusion–a partisan conclusion–has been reached in advance.” (69-70) I don’t believe Fish thinks academics are disconnected from the real world. He’s not even saying that academics ride above the fray, rather he’s suggesting that by eschewing dogma (right-wing or otherwise) and teaching students to reach their own conclusions, academics are a benefit to society.

Second, on your excellent counter-example: I suppose one could present this in class, but we both know that a blog and a classroom are different environments. We’d have to pull this apart and marshal evidence as with any other argument: After the first premise (that African Americans were “naturally musical”) a student might ask, “Did record labels sign whites, too?” Yes. “Did they receive the same low fee?” Usually not, but a higher one. “Were whites, then, more naturally musical?” Well, no. “Why would record labels pay whites more for less natural ability?” . . . And so on, the point being that classrooms are wonderfully dialogic and academics owe it to themselves and students to progress incrementally and to present arguments–even the Bizarro ones–logically, building steps to a first-floor window.

The third part of Fish’s mantra (don’t let anyone else do your job) is, you might agree, the most problematic. Sure, some academics will run class this way, others that way; in the end it’s our position in the humanities that even provides us these opportunities. But it’s shrinking, and those with just a foot in the door (graduate instructors hired cheaply) have the most at stake and the least sway with administration. We need advocates, presumably among the tenured. And we’ve got a lot of those in IASPM, which is why I think this discussion is far from over.

* – Or archery, for that matter, or anything else an academic chooses to do when not leading students.

I have a profound ambivalence about Fish’s stance on this. While I at once appreciate his directness, and the courage to stake some ground and stick to it, I also find that he flirts way to much with a black and white view of how scholars fit in the world. Granted, he is talking about the world of professional academia, but I find his emphasis on “function” to be playing right into the hands of an instrumentalist view of education that he suggests is only “contingent.” He perpetuates a type of separation that appears at this point to have little basis in reality: the notion of both discrete disciplinary territories and the idea that academics somehow (ought to) function apart from the worlds of politics, social engagement, and activism. Especially under contemporary conditions of precarious employment, gutting of benefits packages and wages, and lack of research opportunity for emerging scholars, the days of the academic riding above the fray of the “real world” are over. We’re all part of the real world now. And if this is the case, then do we not have an obligation to transcend binaristic divisions about what constitutes “our job” and “their job” and beginning seeing our positions as relative (and related) to all others?

I suppose it depends on your point of view, but isn’t part of the remit of scholarly research of all kinds to, in fact, “save the world”? I can’t see any other reason for this enterprise other than to learn more in order to make the world a better place. And this is where Fish’s ethical ambivalence really stirs me up. There is a difference between dogmatic acceptance of ideas, and recognising when an idea is a good one and worth fighting for, and when an idea is simply unacceptable. It’s not always the case that just because there are conflicting arguments that both are equally valid. One of the failings of Fish’s argument in this case is that it presents an all too easy way out of dealing with the tough ethical issues; we can present “both sides” and thus have done our objective duty of equipping the students with information – but have we facilitated “knowledge”?

An example from popular music: let’s say that one argument posited that signing African American rock’n'roll artists in the 1950s to contracts that clearly saw the lion’s share of the royalties return to the record label was simply the natural order of things because an African American artist was “naturally musical” and made music that transcended concerns for money, and that furthermore, shouldn’t the record company receive more money as a result of taking the “risk” of throwing their efforts behind an African American artist amidst the emerging tensions of the civil rights movement? Do we present this argument and allow the students to decide for themselves? Or do we engage on ethical ground and call it for what it is: racism. If Fish can stake some ground and stick to it, so can we.

I do appreciate his intervention though, particularly in bringing to the fore the relationship between scholarly pursuits and the administration of these pursuits. I agree that we might perhaps do better and proactively pre-empting administrative policies that threaten academic freedom, research time, and professional development; I think you raise some really important questions and areas of struggle for us to address, especially around the “either-this-or-that” type of decisions that pervade the academy, and society more generally.

Thanks!

It hasn’t been confirmed, but there is a rumour that Montreal will be the site of the 2011 conference. Thanks for your kind words!

Nicholas

Personally, I find the “book club” idea appealing. I’ll have a think about proposing an article or book that might be fun to read collectively…