The great PhD scam
Part 5
by Jordan Ellenberg
The 10,000 scholars here in DC are united in a difficult, invaluable, sometimes
exciting communal project. Just by reading books (and movies, and menus, and
Steve Martin songs) they're finding out things about how people live -- and
about what people are, and how people decide what they are -- that laymen like
me don't know, and can't fully understand. But the scholars seem to labor under
an unremitting fear that everything they do is worthless. You can see that fear
in the protective secret language of cultural studies. You can see it in
Murder at the MLA, in which the kind of knowledge English professors
have turns out to be the kind that solves crimes. You can see it in the
humanities' conflicted relationship with the sciences. You can see it in the
academy's failure to mount any forceful response to the conservative critics of
the early '90s and to the administration "streamliners" of today.
John Guillory, an English professor at Johns Hopkins, spoke Saturday morning
on "Rationales for Literary Study." Guillory, whose book Cultural
Capital has made him an authority on the way academic knowledge is produced
and consumed, told a polite crowd that they had to quit worrying about being
useful. The problems of the academy, he said, wouldn't be solved until English
professors (and then the public) found a way to value literary knowledge for
itself, the way we value, say, knowledge about mathematics.
He didn't seem to make a big impression, but it's Guillory I'm thinking about
on Sunday afternoon, with the conference winding to a close, as I sit in a
little panel room waiting for a hopeful Renaissancist grad student to start his
piece on Donne. A woman behind me says, "Don't spread the word about the
Thackeray revival. Right now I am the Thackeray revival." I'm trying to
imagine a world where English was more like mathematics. A reporter's job at
the MLA wouldn't be to pass judgment on the field but to relay, with suitable
deference, the past year's breakthroughs. People would say things to English
professors like "I don't know how you do it -- I never got the hang of
reading." Literary study would have its own E.O. Wilsons and Stephen Hawkings,
beloved public shamans with stacks of honorary degrees. And with the rise in
public standing would come kibbitzers and hangers-on; maybe Camille Paglia's a
first glimmering of that.
It would be different. The last of Cary Nelson's 12 steps is
"Popularize the Achievements of the Academy." He's right about that -- it's the
only way to keep cost-cutting legislators at bay. But I'm not sure the scholars
want to be popular. Like sensitive, dance-shy teens, they know you lose
something, too. As the discourse becomes public, it coarsens and shrinks; it
has to fit inside an op-ed piece or a New Yorker cartoon. Is that a
price the scholars will be willing to pay? I can't tell, but I think they'll
have to decide soon.
Out in the hall, the exhibitors are packing up. As the room settles into
attention, I get up to go -- I have somewhere to be, across town.
"I think we can begin," the moderator says.
Jordan Ellenberg is a writer living in Somerville.