I don’t know, are we being too harsh? It is kind of a clever take on the whole tenured professorship thing. Maybe he’s just poking fun at his profession.
I was, honestly, more poking fun at some people who appear to suffer from what I call 'logorrhea', but then again, yes, you may also consider this a warning.
He's an academic philosopher, and so he phrases things a bit, ahem, creatively. However, he absolutely is doing young people a favor. Anyone even remotely considering getting a PhD and going into academia should know that a successful academic career involves moving repeatedly early on, and then moving to a place you didn't actively choose for the rest of your career. (And an unsuccessful academic career generally means moving repeatedly early on, and then having to leave academia because you didn't land a permanent job.) That's just how it is. The added layer with the humanities is that almost no-one lands a permanent job, and most of the rare exceptions come from a tiny number of elite schools. Yes, bright young students (especially those who did not grow up in the upper middle class) should be reminded of that early and often, though professors in search of PhD students, especially at non-elite universities, don't like having their prospective students scared off by such talk.
Oh my, I'm tempted to add a few things, but I suppose these will do:
Agreed, and all of this is known, perhaps not to the fullest extent (as most 'successful' academics will sugar-coat their own certainly 'exceptional' careers), and if you get yourself into these kinds of conundrums, well, either deal with it or STFU.
As to the humanities, well, you're describing the situation in the US very accurately; over here in Europe, it's not (yet) as dire in this regard--but you'd need the right 'connections' to be considered 'professorabile'. As to the social backgrounds of students, my experience is that neither talent nor ambition (or stamina, for that matter) are correlated to social/class backgrounds: I've seen way more 'privileged' people completely screw up/throw away their ostensibly better positions.
In my own field, I'm always trying to be honest about what academia means--to everyone. I don't care if this hurts anyone's feelings, with ambitious and potentially interested students often being very grateful while, somewhat ironically, most of my professorial colleagues disliking me shitting on these golden calves of theirs…
Actually, I completely disagree with this: "and if you get yourself into these kinds of conundrums, well, either deal with it or STFU." Err, no. Tell others, so that they don't get themselves into the same situation. To the extent that the state of the academic job market is becoming common knowledge, it's precisely thanks to the likes of this prof who didn't just "deal with it or STFU," but actually spoke up about it.
As for class background: it's not a matter of talent and ambition. It's a matter of whether you and your family move in the kinds of social circles where the state of the academic job market is common knowledge. Students from upper middle class backgrounds are far more likely to be in the know than students from middle or working class backgrounds. That's why students who are not from the upper middle class need to be warned by as many professors as possible, lest they find themselves buying an incredibly expensive lottery ticket ("ten years of your life, please"). Obviously, the legitimately rich need no warning: they have their trust funds, so they can just read Heidegger or whatever for free if they like.
Well, you're both right and wrong at the same time. There are few academics who will tell those who come after them (often in a tongue-in-cheek way laden with irony).
As to the point you're raising, that issue about 'mobility' has been around since the creation of the 'modern' university 200 years ago. It started with leaving home for high school (gymnasium), and moving around has not been that much of a thing. What has increased in recent years, though, are the complaints that one doesn't get to the position/place that one wishes (aspires/desires/feels entitled to).
Talent, ambition, and class background often go together--but for the upper classes, grades, capabilities, or results doesn't matter; for the lower classes, things are tricky from before kindergarten due to, say, the absence of books at home, the denigration of learning by parents, and, yes, economic constraints. (My personal experience is that more and more middle class people with university/college degrees don't have books at home, don't read, or exhibit habits like their less fortunate fellow citizens.) Once anyone makes it through secondary schools, life gets harder still at the university level due to what Bourdieu called Distinctions, i.e., how you speak (dialect vs. standard idiom), how you behave/dress, and who your parents know (basically, if you dad's a professor, your odds increase [mine isn't, and neither is my mother]). Getting tenure is often so far removed from the options, for a variety of reasons, that it's hardly a realistic option.
For what it's worth, the US elite system, for all its faults and idiosyncrasies, has been more conducive to upward social mobility (although, in all fairness, of course the game is rigged towards people with certain backgrounds) than, say, European academia. Since my own 'career' was quite improbable, I can assure you that I'm speaking up wherever I can, and I place a lot of emphasis on trying to advise/mentor young people; the sad thing is, though, institutional inertia and the bureaucratisation of everything have made success for those who don't hail from these more privileged quarters of society much worse in the past 25 years.
This is so funny - I could not stop laughing at your [snark].
"My passions for photography and philosophy have the same root; these are ways of seeing the world and presenting ideas to others."
I have no idea what he means by that.
(It means he fancies himself not just a god, but God, creating the universe for the rest of us who could in no way match his sublime academic excellence).
Oh, satire is the deadly enemy of tyranny since time immemorial.
(It's funny that you directly point to this: the leftish absurdity must always point to this, for leftism arises out of gnostic/heretic concoctions and wet dreams of man becoming God.)
To me as an academic who spent the past 15 years outside my home country, well, my only response is: if you didn't know this to be the path you're choosing when embarking on an academic career, you're deluding yourself. If, upon completion of a Ph.D. this continues to surprise you, you're likely not made for this field.
Couldn’t find him on Twitter, either. I’ve found him on Canary Mission. Apparently, he’s committed a cardinal error by participating in a pro-Palestinian (pro-terrorist) rally at University of Pennsylvania. It is unlikely he would ever attain tenure at any university in the US. https://canarymission.org/professor/Jake_Jackson
Oh, that's quite something--I disapprove of this, and then some. As a tenured professor (in history, i.e., close enough), I surmise that while that was a career-ender, there's so many other such choices he could have taken, like, shitposting whatever online or the like.
Because I could not find much of anything about him or by him, I really don’t get a good grip what’s he about. An adjunct professor in the US is a specimen of lumpenproletariat. Many live in their cars because they do not earn enough for an apartment. That is usually accompanied by an accumulated debt load they will probably never pay off. With future student enrollments dropping such professors are unlikely to see a prosperous future. That is why many fall for so many intellectual fads which promise better employment at colleges and universities. I think this trend is coming to an end.
Technocracy and bureaucracy both a triat unique to them among the -isms:
Decay, or entropy, is built-in as a feature and an almost desired outcome.
Authoritarianism in all its forms is progressive by nature, because it exists in conflict with internal and external threats; hence development of new technologies are necessary or else the system will be defeated.
Liberalism is evangelic and being able to proselytise means being able to corrupt or coerce unbelievers into converting to the faith (this trait is what cause liberals of all kinds to ally with islam, by the way).
Marxism mimics liberalism in this, which isn't strange since its core ethical tenets were derived from 18th century liberal thought.
Et cetera. Any ideology or -ism, including the Abrahamic faiths, seeks in some way to develop or evolve towards an ideal state of being/living. Tech-/bureaucracy does not: it's ideal is a state of no change and it will expend all its resources in preventing evolution, thereby causing and eventually worshipping entropy, in the form of ever-increasing costs for remaining in the same state.
Certaonly, any -ism may (perhaps will or must) fall into that trap if it becomes monodominant, but only tech-/bureaucracy actively and consciously seeks to achieve it.
A move towards authoritarianism via technocracy would result in entropy becoming the enemy-idea; the authoritariat needs to show progress, not to its people but to itself in its internal power-struggles, and that progress needs to be real, not abstract. Which means ethics will be adapted to serve that progress, which leads all the way back to the start of modern political philosophy:
Utilist/utilitarianist ideals.
There, now I too qualify as "not that kind of doctor". Egads, that academia of today is so debased that someone like me with no titles and no formal post-grad anything, is at least on par with people like the man you used as an example.
It's like someone said once: "The best argument for the humanities and social sciences being rubbish, is themselves".
I'll pick up at the bottom of your comment (as I don't have anything other than snark to add to the gist of your argument). You write:
'The best argument for the humanities and social sciences being rubbish, is themselves.'
Agreed, if we're talking the careerist-infested absurdities of the present moment.
I disagree insofar as it used to be different, and we do have scholars in both the humanities and the social sciences who speak up, think for themselves (as opposed to curry favour with the powers that be), and aren't silent.
Take, e.g., John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Glenn Diesen, or your humble rapporteur here. There are many others, too, and 'we' (if I may be permitted to use that moniker here) aren't like the majority. Both the humanities and the social sciences have the potential to serve society and play a relevant role, even though the current trajectory of grant-seeking and 'networked' friendships™ are relevant, alternative voices exist and they are getting out--many are here on Substack.
The best argument for academia is substantial disagreements.
I'd say the downward trend started in the late 1950s and the early 1960s when post-modernism went from being an art-style to becoming an ontological perspective.
The difference that ought to be brought back is that believing in something and studying something, are not the same. Now, to study "gender relations" you must first believe the entire ideological package, and I don't need to go into the problems with that mindset.
It is the twin of the natural scientists and technologists belief-system, that the right invention or discovery will fix all societal problems (and we know their usual refrain when the latest gadget doesn't do what was promised: "When it works as intended, it works perfectly fine" plus "If people would just learn to adapt to the tech it would work!").
I'm a bit harsher in my outlook, partly by choice - I've found that being conciliatory and diplomatic when speaking to our fellow "soft science"-colleagues on any level doesn't work: they have almost universally a bourgoise or upper class sheltered background and upbringing and so cannot understand certain crucial truths about the social sciences. Growing up from humble origins doesn't make one noble in the slightest, but it gives a much more down to Earth realist mindset: I still have the pair of alpine skiis I worked to afford when I was 15, and they still work just fine (with the bindings adjusted for weight and the sides sharpened a couple of times). If mom or dad had just bought a pair when I wanted one, just like that, what would that have taught me instead?
And that perspective is lacking in today's social sciences: costs are real, labour makes for worth, and your ideals comes with a price.
I share these sentiments, and like you say, I don't hold back: life's too short to be superficially polite.
As to the detachment of most academics from reality, well, that's about the same problem as, say, the composition of parliamentary assemblies whose ranks include virtually no working class representatives (which I note to be worse with self-identifying-as-leftist factions).
As to the price of one's ideals and principles, well, some things aren't for sale, and if one's interlocutor doesn't know that (about you or me), that's someone else's problem, eh?
Of course there's Mr. Global behind these rulers™, but they must employ wimps and sissies to do their bidding, hence the posting (also, I had very little time today).
I don’t know, are we being too harsh? It is kind of a clever take on the whole tenured professorship thing. Maybe he’s just poking fun at his profession.
Perhaps you're correct; on the other hand, have you met some of these academics?
Take, e.g., Prof. Anna Smajdor who advocates for…well, let's call it 'zombie pregnancies':
https://fackel.substack.com/p/woke-transhumanism-frankenstein-science
And, yes, making fun of one's profession is essential to stay sane in today's academic world (personal opinion).
I just saw it as a fair warning for anyone even remotely considering an academic career, and ten-fold so if it's in the humanities.
I was, honestly, more poking fun at some people who appear to suffer from what I call 'logorrhea', but then again, yes, you may also consider this a warning.
He's an academic philosopher, and so he phrases things a bit, ahem, creatively. However, he absolutely is doing young people a favor. Anyone even remotely considering getting a PhD and going into academia should know that a successful academic career involves moving repeatedly early on, and then moving to a place you didn't actively choose for the rest of your career. (And an unsuccessful academic career generally means moving repeatedly early on, and then having to leave academia because you didn't land a permanent job.) That's just how it is. The added layer with the humanities is that almost no-one lands a permanent job, and most of the rare exceptions come from a tiny number of elite schools. Yes, bright young students (especially those who did not grow up in the upper middle class) should be reminded of that early and often, though professors in search of PhD students, especially at non-elite universities, don't like having their prospective students scared off by such talk.
Oh my, I'm tempted to add a few things, but I suppose these will do:
Agreed, and all of this is known, perhaps not to the fullest extent (as most 'successful' academics will sugar-coat their own certainly 'exceptional' careers), and if you get yourself into these kinds of conundrums, well, either deal with it or STFU.
As to the humanities, well, you're describing the situation in the US very accurately; over here in Europe, it's not (yet) as dire in this regard--but you'd need the right 'connections' to be considered 'professorabile'. As to the social backgrounds of students, my experience is that neither talent nor ambition (or stamina, for that matter) are correlated to social/class backgrounds: I've seen way more 'privileged' people completely screw up/throw away their ostensibly better positions.
In my own field, I'm always trying to be honest about what academia means--to everyone. I don't care if this hurts anyone's feelings, with ambitious and potentially interested students often being very grateful while, somewhat ironically, most of my professorial colleagues disliking me shitting on these golden calves of theirs…
Actually, I completely disagree with this: "and if you get yourself into these kinds of conundrums, well, either deal with it or STFU." Err, no. Tell others, so that they don't get themselves into the same situation. To the extent that the state of the academic job market is becoming common knowledge, it's precisely thanks to the likes of this prof who didn't just "deal with it or STFU," but actually spoke up about it.
As for class background: it's not a matter of talent and ambition. It's a matter of whether you and your family move in the kinds of social circles where the state of the academic job market is common knowledge. Students from upper middle class backgrounds are far more likely to be in the know than students from middle or working class backgrounds. That's why students who are not from the upper middle class need to be warned by as many professors as possible, lest they find themselves buying an incredibly expensive lottery ticket ("ten years of your life, please"). Obviously, the legitimately rich need no warning: they have their trust funds, so they can just read Heidegger or whatever for free if they like.
Well, you're both right and wrong at the same time. There are few academics who will tell those who come after them (often in a tongue-in-cheek way laden with irony).
As to the point you're raising, that issue about 'mobility' has been around since the creation of the 'modern' university 200 years ago. It started with leaving home for high school (gymnasium), and moving around has not been that much of a thing. What has increased in recent years, though, are the complaints that one doesn't get to the position/place that one wishes (aspires/desires/feels entitled to).
Talent, ambition, and class background often go together--but for the upper classes, grades, capabilities, or results doesn't matter; for the lower classes, things are tricky from before kindergarten due to, say, the absence of books at home, the denigration of learning by parents, and, yes, economic constraints. (My personal experience is that more and more middle class people with university/college degrees don't have books at home, don't read, or exhibit habits like their less fortunate fellow citizens.) Once anyone makes it through secondary schools, life gets harder still at the university level due to what Bourdieu called Distinctions, i.e., how you speak (dialect vs. standard idiom), how you behave/dress, and who your parents know (basically, if you dad's a professor, your odds increase [mine isn't, and neither is my mother]). Getting tenure is often so far removed from the options, for a variety of reasons, that it's hardly a realistic option.
For what it's worth, the US elite system, for all its faults and idiosyncrasies, has been more conducive to upward social mobility (although, in all fairness, of course the game is rigged towards people with certain backgrounds) than, say, European academia. Since my own 'career' was quite improbable, I can assure you that I'm speaking up wherever I can, and I place a lot of emphasis on trying to advise/mentor young people; the sad thing is, though, institutional inertia and the bureaucratisation of everything have made success for those who don't hail from these more privileged quarters of society much worse in the past 25 years.
This is so funny - I could not stop laughing at your [snark].
"My passions for photography and philosophy have the same root; these are ways of seeing the world and presenting ideas to others."
I have no idea what he means by that.
(It means he fancies himself not just a god, but God, creating the universe for the rest of us who could in no way match his sublime academic excellence).
Oh, satire is the deadly enemy of tyranny since time immemorial.
(It's funny that you directly point to this: the leftish absurdity must always point to this, for leftism arises out of gnostic/heretic concoctions and wet dreams of man becoming God.)
To me as an academic who spent the past 15 years outside my home country, well, my only response is: if you didn't know this to be the path you're choosing when embarking on an academic career, you're deluding yourself. If, upon completion of a Ph.D. this continues to surprise you, you're likely not made for this field.
Ambition must be made of sterner stuff.
Couldn’t find him on Twitter, either. I’ve found him on Canary Mission. Apparently, he’s committed a cardinal error by participating in a pro-Palestinian (pro-terrorist) rally at University of Pennsylvania. It is unlikely he would ever attain tenure at any university in the US. https://canarymission.org/professor/Jake_Jackson
Oh, that's quite something--I disapprove of this, and then some. As a tenured professor (in history, i.e., close enough), I surmise that while that was a career-ender, there's so many other such choices he could have taken, like, shitposting whatever online or the like.
Canary Mission? Ah, yes. Here's their profile of another "terrorist-supporter":
https://canarymission.org/professor/Jeffrey_Sachs
Because I could not find much of anything about him or by him, I really don’t get a good grip what’s he about. An adjunct professor in the US is a specimen of lumpenproletariat. Many live in their cars because they do not earn enough for an apartment. That is usually accompanied by an accumulated debt load they will probably never pay off. With future student enrollments dropping such professors are unlikely to see a prosperous future. That is why many fall for so many intellectual fads which promise better employment at colleges and universities. I think this trend is coming to an end.
Technocracy and bureaucracy both a triat unique to them among the -isms:
Decay, or entropy, is built-in as a feature and an almost desired outcome.
Authoritarianism in all its forms is progressive by nature, because it exists in conflict with internal and external threats; hence development of new technologies are necessary or else the system will be defeated.
Liberalism is evangelic and being able to proselytise means being able to corrupt or coerce unbelievers into converting to the faith (this trait is what cause liberals of all kinds to ally with islam, by the way).
Marxism mimics liberalism in this, which isn't strange since its core ethical tenets were derived from 18th century liberal thought.
Et cetera. Any ideology or -ism, including the Abrahamic faiths, seeks in some way to develop or evolve towards an ideal state of being/living. Tech-/bureaucracy does not: it's ideal is a state of no change and it will expend all its resources in preventing evolution, thereby causing and eventually worshipping entropy, in the form of ever-increasing costs for remaining in the same state.
Certaonly, any -ism may (perhaps will or must) fall into that trap if it becomes monodominant, but only tech-/bureaucracy actively and consciously seeks to achieve it.
A move towards authoritarianism via technocracy would result in entropy becoming the enemy-idea; the authoritariat needs to show progress, not to its people but to itself in its internal power-struggles, and that progress needs to be real, not abstract. Which means ethics will be adapted to serve that progress, which leads all the way back to the start of modern political philosophy:
Utilist/utilitarianist ideals.
There, now I too qualify as "not that kind of doctor". Egads, that academia of today is so debased that someone like me with no titles and no formal post-grad anything, is at least on par with people like the man you used as an example.
It's like someone said once: "The best argument for the humanities and social sciences being rubbish, is themselves".
I'll pick up at the bottom of your comment (as I don't have anything other than snark to add to the gist of your argument). You write:
'The best argument for the humanities and social sciences being rubbish, is themselves.'
Agreed, if we're talking the careerist-infested absurdities of the present moment.
I disagree insofar as it used to be different, and we do have scholars in both the humanities and the social sciences who speak up, think for themselves (as opposed to curry favour with the powers that be), and aren't silent.
Take, e.g., John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Glenn Diesen, or your humble rapporteur here. There are many others, too, and 'we' (if I may be permitted to use that moniker here) aren't like the majority. Both the humanities and the social sciences have the potential to serve society and play a relevant role, even though the current trajectory of grant-seeking and 'networked' friendships™ are relevant, alternative voices exist and they are getting out--many are here on Substack.
The best argument for academia is substantial disagreements.
I'd say the downward trend started in the late 1950s and the early 1960s when post-modernism went from being an art-style to becoming an ontological perspective.
The difference that ought to be brought back is that believing in something and studying something, are not the same. Now, to study "gender relations" you must first believe the entire ideological package, and I don't need to go into the problems with that mindset.
It is the twin of the natural scientists and technologists belief-system, that the right invention or discovery will fix all societal problems (and we know their usual refrain when the latest gadget doesn't do what was promised: "When it works as intended, it works perfectly fine" plus "If people would just learn to adapt to the tech it would work!").
I'm a bit harsher in my outlook, partly by choice - I've found that being conciliatory and diplomatic when speaking to our fellow "soft science"-colleagues on any level doesn't work: they have almost universally a bourgoise or upper class sheltered background and upbringing and so cannot understand certain crucial truths about the social sciences. Growing up from humble origins doesn't make one noble in the slightest, but it gives a much more down to Earth realist mindset: I still have the pair of alpine skiis I worked to afford when I was 15, and they still work just fine (with the bindings adjusted for weight and the sides sharpened a couple of times). If mom or dad had just bought a pair when I wanted one, just like that, what would that have taught me instead?
And that perspective is lacking in today's social sciences: costs are real, labour makes for worth, and your ideals comes with a price.
I share these sentiments, and like you say, I don't hold back: life's too short to be superficially polite.
As to the detachment of most academics from reality, well, that's about the same problem as, say, the composition of parliamentary assemblies whose ranks include virtually no working class representatives (which I note to be worse with self-identifying-as-leftist factions).
As to the price of one's ideals and principles, well, some things aren't for sale, and if one's interlocutor doesn't know that (about you or me), that's someone else's problem, eh?
"Technocracy is the Backdoor to Authoritarianism by Wimps" controlled by the banksters and their army of God's chosen psychopaths.
Of course there's Mr. Global behind these rulers™, but they must employ wimps and sissies to do their bidding, hence the posting (also, I had very little time today).
‘Bio-Ethics’
A HAH!
(Thanks for the link to Ms. Laubenstein Medina‘s essay. Downloaded but haven’t read it yet).
The faculty link returns "page not found".