Academic elitism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ssumlin (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 12 May 2014 (→Feminism For Real). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:58, 12 May 2014 by Ssumlin (talk | contribs) (→Feminism For Real)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Academic elitism is the criticism that academia or academics are prone to elitism. The term "ivory tower" often carries with it an implicit critique of academic elitism.

Description

Economist Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society claims that intellectuals have an undeserved "halo effect" and are thus unfairly permitted to speak outside their expertise. In Sowell's estimation, academics respected for their contributions in their particular discipline often become known to the general public by commenting on policy issues outside that discipline.

Critics of academic elitism argue that highly educated people tend to form an isolated social group whose views tend to be over represented among journalists, professors, and other members of the intelligentsia who often draw their salary and funding from taxpayers. Economist Dan Klein shows that the worldwide top-35 economics departments pull 76 percent of their faculty from their own graduates. He argues that the academic culture is pyramidal, not polycentric, and resembles a closed and genteel social circle. Meanwhile, he claims, academia draws on resources from taxpayers, foundations, endowments, and tuition payers, and it judges the social service delivered. The result is a self-organizing and self-validating circle.

Another criticism is that universities tend more to pseudo-intellectualism than intellectualism per se; for example, academicians may be charged with over-complicating problems and expressing them in obscure language (e.g., the Sokal affair, obscurantism).

Academic elitism suggests that in highly competitive academic environments only those individuals who have engaged in scholarship are deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do. It suggests that individuals who have not engaged in such scholarship are cranks. Steven Zhang of the Cornell Daily Sun has described the graduates of elite schools, especially those in the Ivy League, as having a "smug sense of success" because "It makes us believe gaining entrance into the Ivy League is an accomplishment unto itself." Deeming scholarly academic discourse as the only means with which to engage in a topic has various implications in a variety of fields of study.

Feminist Academia

Feminist Theory is a recognized legitimate field of study in academia. Feminist academia provides the rhetoric and explanative power to build the knowledge of women’s oppression and the tools to challenge the apparent subordination. Feminist theory has a language of its own to describe the inequalities and place a name to the many concepts and ideas that comprise the feminist theories. The root goal of a multitude of feminist theories is to encourage the collective discourse of a variety of people from different walks of life (cite). In practice however, the very language of academia is exclusive.

Feminism can be seen as elitist by creating a unique language specific to feminism that is not accessible to all. The requirement of learning the complex lexicon of feminism can hinder women seeking to become involved in the movement but unable to attend college. Irony can be found in trying to legitimize the field of feminist theory and branch out inclusive theory such as intersectionality, Black Feminism, Indigenous feminisms, and transnational feminism. The very rhetoric of the field may alienate women who are unable to attain a college education which in turn reduces these women's credibility in feminism.

Critiques of Feminist Academia

Feminism For Real

Jessica Yee's Feminism For Real outlines the elitist attitudes in feminist academia. (cite) Yee seeks to “ the academic industrial complex of feminism.” (cite) In the book, Yee outlines how she is still a valid voice for feminism despite the fact that she does not hold a degree. (cite) Yee explains, "So now I hope you will continue to read this-- even if I did just drop a few points on the intelligence scale of where you might have thought I was." (cite) Her reference to an imaginary intelligence scale enforces the notion that one must have a degree in order to be well versed in feminism and to be taken seriously in the field.

Feminism Under Fire

Ellen R. Klein further exemplifies the issues that surround the academic nature of feminism in Feminism Under Fire.(cite) Klein showcases the harsh and judgmental nature of her "feminist comrades" who deem her classical education in philosophy as illegitimate.(cite) She explains that she was ridiculed and told her questions were "unworthy of response" because in her comrades' eyes, she was biased with male-dominated schooling.(cite) This very judgmental nature of feminism itself is a testament to the inaccessibility of feminism to a very large section of women because they are unable to 'keep up' with the high society of college educated feminists.

Making Face, Making Soul Hacienda Caras

Figures in the Critique of Feminist Academia

Many feminist supporters argue that their experiences have been fraught with opposition based on their lack of perceived education. These women speak out against the notion that one must attain certain educational and hierarchical requirements before gaining credibility.

Kit Yuen Quan

"In order to communicate with feminists, most of whom were white or middle class or both, educated and at least ten years older than me, I had to learn my feminist rhetoric." (cite)

"I tried to say all of this with using feminist rhetoric, but when I used the term "working class," someone would argue "You can't use that term..." Because they were educated they thought they owned the language...They did not listen to the point I was trying to make...I felt oppressed by them and the policies of the organization." (cite)

In her article, The Girl Who Wouldn't Sing, Kit Yuen Quan describes her struggle among college educated women to express her views on feminist theory. After leaving her parents' home, Quan sought companionship in a feminist bookshop after being alienated by her family for coming out as a lesbian. In trying to converse with the college educated women, Quan expresses she believed the women were more concerned with the way she said things other than the basis of her argument. (cite) The women, her supposed colleagues, were unable to appreciate the value of her comments because they were focused on the lexicon she was using. (cite) Quan generalizes her specific experience to the feminist movement as a whole suggesting that while both non-educated and educated individuals will have ideas that contribute to the feminist movement as a whole, the non-educated women are unable to make their voices heard due to a language barrier. (cite) The exclusivity of academic semantics in feminism isolates women seeking to contribute to the discussions surrounding feminist theories without the 'correct' terminology to describe it.

Barbara Christian

"Theory has become a commodity which helps determine whether we are hired or promoted in academic institutions-- worse whether we are heard at all."

"The race for theory, with its linguistic jargon...its preoccupation with mechanical analyses of language, graphs, algebraic equations, its gross generalizations about culture, has silenced many of us to the extent that many of us feel we can no longer discuss our own literature, while others... are puzzled by the the incomprehensibility of the language set adrift in literary circles."

"For I feel that the new emphasis on literary critical theory is as hegemonic as the world which it attacks. I see the language it creates as one that mystifies rather than clarifies our condition, making it possible for a few people who know that particular language to control the critical scene."

Barbara Christian critiques the current direction of theory in her piece The Race for Theory. Barbara highlights the push by "The New Philosophers," to redefine theory in a way that convolutes the very subject matter it tries to elucidate. In her application, feminist theory (specifically highlighting the struggle of black feminists) is not advanced by the Western ideals of academia. (cite) She cites the concept of 'whitewashing' black language in order to make it more credible and conversely the depiction of a single 'black-language' as an example of the influence of academia driven philosophy. (cite) Instead of concern over the subject matter discussed, the primary focus is how it is expressed.

Academia Discrediting the Narrative

There is a power that comes from learning from other's personal experience and through the ideology of current academia, personal narratives are not accredited as legitimate. This is limiting to many indigenous and black groups in which the narrative is a powerful form of self- expression. Dian Million speaks to the ability of indigenous narrative to influence society in a new way. In Millon's argument, she explains the exclusion of indigenous feminist narratives is vital for understanding the struggle of indigenous people because of the oral traditional history of their people. (cite) Additionally, Millon speaks to the significance of a movement toward narratives as a legitimate academic tool and the implications of this move for decolonization. (cite)

Misplaced Pages