I am again mortally offended, and it comes from another quarter. One cannot and should not defend against unfounded accusations, is what I have decided. And the university is falling apart, I am told.
In the meantime and on another topic: take care of yourself, do not worry about work, is another one of those advice truisms I am against. What if work is one of the ways in which you DO take care of yourself? What if it is NOT something you alienate yourself in or hide in, but something in which you build and strengthen yourself?
In Reeducation it was not right to remain rational or to be peaceful, or to put things in perspective, as this was considered evidence of a “lack of feeling.”
At the same time it was not right to ever be stunned or caught off guard.
The opposite is true, of course, and I am still just beginning to see how bad Reeducation was.
One of my friends points out, in a nonacademic context, that life in limbo is a hard thing to manage. This is a good observation and I think living in limbo is one of the main stressors of academia.
Of course you can say that uncertainty is everywhere but I am speaking of the constant feeling of limbo, waiting and waiting to get to a place where you are not terribly, distractingly, painfully uncomfortable and trying to hold out despite also knowing you may never get to such a place. Hanging on a rock wall as your strength goes.
The advisors think it is work that is your problem, or geography, to which you would resign yourself if you were a mature and fair person. But it is not the geography or the work, it is the atmosphere in which it is done and the way you and others are treated, that is the problem. Waiting for the pain to end, because it is immoral to do more than that, is the problem.
I wonder how much pain it is possible to cut out while staying in place. How much of the daily delivery of pain one can simply refuse. I have never quite tried that, but I might start now. I used to reach out and take pleasure, but Reeducation stopped this; I should do it more actively than I do even now.
My illumination for the day, though, is that “procrastination” and block are not about not knowing how to work, or discipline, or laziness, but about self-loss. I have pointed out before that they are also about delaying entry into toxic environments, but they are even more profoundly about self-loss.
The characters in El Señor Presidente live in the superego and the id, and have insufficient agency due to an insufficiency of self, says my student’s paper, and my colleague says the situation at our university resembles the one in that novel.
I do not agree that communicative approaches, those methods referred to as grammar-translation, the direct and natural methods, and so on, are merely teaching “styles” — they have different goals and produce different results. Since we as a group do not have a common approach, the de facto departmental method is that used by those who teach the most sections; therefore, I favor creating as small a group as possible to dedicate to the basic sequence, and starting to use, rather than squelch, the expertise of all faculty, all the time.
Imagine for a moment a world in which all courses were taught for pleasure, not as “service.”
…homologar la tortura y el genocidio a las generalidades de la Neurosis traumática es desconocer su especificidad, la que radica en que es otro humano –un semejante– el que tramita racionalmente nuestro oprobio o destrucción. A partir de allí –y a perpetuidad–, la pregunta de quién es el prójimo se planteará sin cesar con otra intensidad, con otra incertidumbre, con otra congoja. Quebrada la identificación originaria a lo humano –que es constitutiva de todas nuestras ficciones teóricas sobre el origen del sujeto psíquico– éste queda fragilizado o fisurado.
I am mortally offended and in touch with many years of anger. I see who and what I am dealing with.
I am not sure what to do. Two have resigned, and four are considering it. Ride it out, says another colleague. Perhaps, but the big change for me is that I see we are dealing with people who do not act in good faith. I had been advised to consider them merely incompetent but what they do, they do not do in error.
Another colleague said it was impossible to advance because the institution does not want to improve, and works against it actively. It might be important to stop interacting with these forces, stop fighting for rights, stop working for collegiality; ignore them completely and work on nothing that cannot be translated into hard data.
I had always assumed that I was considered to have legitimate expertise and to be honest and sincere, but I discover now that it is precisely these characteristics of mine which are questioned. They were the things assumed about me as a child: that I was not competent and would not be, and that I would attempt to compensate for that by taking advantage of others.
Someone similar must be projecting the same things into me now. I should stop allowing these projections to destabilize me. I should have a protection spell cast so that they glance off my diaphanous shield.
Things to remember, or even say to some:
+ I am legitimate.
+ I see why those who wanted more of a certain kind of work out of me are disappointed. I am also disappointed not to have been given better conditions.
+ Those people should remember how they instructed me not to do that work, but to do other work.
+ They should note how well that work was done.
+ But most importantly: I am exhausting myself, yes; but it is not by working too hard on my work, it is by defending against their strangeness.
I really do not want to spend any more time questioning my right to exist, or defending it, including on this weblog.
– direct method or versions of it: not rule then application, but example then explanation then expansion
– emphasis on conversation, being able to converse; spontanaeity
– emphasis on writing whole sentences
– not fixated enough on accent marks, spelling, small grammar issues: yes, they irritate me, but no, not seriously
– too intolerant of translation; expect students to use and remember a variety of structures, to learn to vary and build upon these, and compose…
These are things our students are incapable of doing and that it is inappropriate to ask them to do, it is said.
In an institution long ago there was a full professor who called himself “Lalo,” as a result of which we nicknamed him “Teddy” so we could talk about him and not be understood. “Teddy” sounds nothing like his real name.
Cross-appointed, Teddy disapproved of my friendship with a professor in his other department. Walter F. Pitts might mislead me somehow, imprint misinformation about the Hispanic world on my tabula rasa mind. I should not be seen going to lunch with Walter F. Pitts because “people” “might think” that I thought the things he thought.
I knew instantly that by “people” Teddy meant himself. I do not always discern this manipulation when it is used, but I have discerned it lately. “Limit yourself and your capacities, so that you do not represent a threat to poor so-and-so, who has not had the chance to do your kind of Ph.D.” Poor so-and-so might actually be the speaker.
In this kind of case poor so-and-so is not being protected, but used.
“You must take care of yourself (and not your work).”
Some fallacies inhere in this sentence (depending on how it is used).
Filed under Banes, Questions