The Purpose of the Academy

Hi everybody, I am tired of studying biochemistry right now, so I will have a few brief comments on the Barack Obama/Mary Ann Glendon affair.  

For those of you who don't know, President Obama is slated to give the commencement address at Notre Dame, and Professor Glendon was scheduled to receive the Laetare Medal, a high honor given to Catholic scholars or stewards (in some capacity--I am no expert on the award).  In any case, she decided to decline the award, saying that she was used as traditional token church traditionalist in counterpoint to the President's pro-abortion views.   Google it at your leisure.

Elsewhere, Patrick Deneen wrote:

While Glendon does not emphasize one direction that these statements could be taken, the tactic is clear and widespread: it is enough for Catholic institutions to have some voice on campus that "represents" the Catholic view, and the very presence of such a voice is sufficient both to signal the soundness of the institution's Catholic identity as well as permitting the inclusion of any and all non- or even anti-Catholic voices. It's as if what's being said is: "Don't worry about all that stuff that indicates we are not Catholic - we have Program X over here, or Professor Q over there." What this thin and bankrupt argument seeks in fact to obfuscate is the absence of an actual dominant and defining Catholic culture and governing philosophy on campus. What it seeks to veil is that a large number of "Catholic" institutions seek to be indistinguishable from their secular and disaffiliated counterparts with a light sprinkling of some Catholic program or symbols that purport to show their distinctiveness. Meanwhile - as the student guides of the campus tours at Georgetown always seek to point out to prospective students and their families - we all know that this school is not REALLY Catholic - ::wink-wink:: - so don't worry. It's all just for show.

This raises a good point about the greater question of the purpose of academia and intellectual pursuit.  Some will allege that providing a panoply of views within a particular institution is beneficial, in that we need to have free inquiry into a wide variety of ideas: ideas imposed by an institutional monoculture are not ideas at all, but propaganda.  Agreed.  But intellectual humility can be taken too far, and is taken too far in many circumstances.  When official promulgation of doctrine or ideas is silenced for the prevention of "divisiveness," we must ask what, in the end, is the pursuit of truth for?  Because if we hold that adhering to an idea, or thought, or belief is necessarily oppressive or hurtful, then academia itself becomes a contradiction.  

We must have the humility to admit we can be wrong, but we must also have the honesty to stand for something.  At some point, rationality cannot be the riddle of the Zen koan--a delicate balance of yin and yang, ever opposed, ever different, but always equal.

To clarify, in the setting of Catholic universities:  some will say that official doctrine is ipso facto oppressive and antithetical to thought.  Yes, I admit, it can be; truth imposed by fear or sheer rigidity does not cause agreement, but rather, acquiescence--later to be replaced by rebellion, when out of the shadow of the nun's icy glare, so to speak.  Persuasion is necessary.  However, the entire concept of education is that the young pupils must be built up by those who are older, wiser, etc.  The power differential between teacher and student must not be abused, but we must recognize that a power differential exists, but that this is not a problem in itself.  Too often, the concept that the young should rebel against their elders is upheld, citing abuses of traditionalism and authority, but this is to say their misuese implies they are by their very nature bad, when this is not so.  Yes, all societies and cultures have problems that require change and reform, but they also have things that should endure and be preserved, and reflexive spewing about the "damn kids on your lawn," or "crotchety, old codgers who know nothing" only spares us the hard work of asking us the hard questions of what must be kept and what must be thrown out.

To the point of intellectual pursuit in a Catholic university (or any with an official doctrine): again, free inquiry is desirable in its own right, but only to its proper extent¹.  At some point, if a university or organization is established under the premise that "This is true," then eventually, it must uphold that tenet.  Why?  Because again, if academia and inquiry actually matter because the truth is actually true, then when someone concludes tenet X or point Y, they have an obligation to fight for it.  You may say that this stifles debate, asking questions, etc, but remember, universities do not exist in a vacuum, but in the greater milieu of the culture at large, where there a plenty of other universities, groups, scholars, et al who will gladly disagree.  In other words, a university that vigorously defends its tenets is not squelching dissent, but engaging it.  If we cared deeply about debate and inquiry, we would see that anything less is not accomodation---it is abdication.

1.  Yes I know I am not asking the "hard questions" of what that extent is.  It's late, I'm tired, and I have to go review aminolevulinic acid.  If you have any ideas, that's what the comment box is for.

A Total Harvest

At the behest of my true friend, and last remaining loyal reader, Chris, I will put up some new content.  Indeed, in honor of Lent, I will try to put something up daily, even if at sometimes I must resort to the trite or mundane, but hopefully I will be able to churn out something worthwhile, at least occasionally.

My ultimate goal for this blog is to serve as a source of commentary on the prospects of professing Christ in a world that is often disinterested, but is often

...as we eat the flour of our pursuits, so, too, shall we live.

disintegrating, as well.  I understand that seems like both a vague and broad undertaking, and a daunting challenge, especially for one business medical student in a middling corner of the flat Midwest.  At this point, and as a means of introduction of my ideas, I can do no better than quote at length TS Eliot, noted poet, Nobel laureate, and erstwhile cultural thinker:

The fact that a problem will certainly take a long time to solve, and that it will demand the attention of many minds for several generations, is no justification for postponing the study.  And, in times of emergency, it may prove in the long run that the problems we have postponed or ignored, rather than those we have failed to attack successfully, will return to plague us.  Our difficulties of the present moment must always be dealt with somehow: but our permanent difficulties are difficulties of every moment.  The subject with which I am concerned in the following pages is one to which I an cconvinced we ought to turn our attention now, if we hope to ever to be relieved of the immediate perplexities that fill our minds.  It is urgent because it is fundamental; and its urgency is the reason for a person like myself attemptiong to address, on a subject beyond his usual scope, that public which is likely to read what he writes on other subjects. [More than I can say personally.--TE]  THis is a subject which I could handle better, no doubt,  were I profound scholar in any of several fields.  But I am not writing for scholars, but for people like myself; some defects may be compensated by some advantages; and what one must be judged by, scholar or no, is not particularised knowledge but one's total harvest of thinking, feeling, living, and observing human beings.

From, TS Eliot, Christianity and Culture, Harcourt Brace, 1939, p. 5.

Such is my endeavor, that "the total harvest of thinking, feeling, and living" as a believer in an age of uncertainty will be recorded here.  This apt phrase "total harvest" crystallizes many of my grave concerns facing society today: the compartmentalization of concepts and pursuits into specialized and distinct realms.  And as we sow our thinking, we reap our feelings and ideals, and as we eat the flour of our pursuits, so, too, shall we live.  

When our basic understanding of mankind at a fundamental level is fragmented within the increasingly inward-looking academy, the public eventually responds with indifference and moves to more hedonic pursuits.  And as hedonism is, at its core, selfish, what happens to society as people themselves become more inward-looking?

My goal is to restore and proclaim Truth that builds up such inward personal fulfillment that we can resume humanity's charge to live socially.  That the despair of consumption and its concomitant atomization of our society into the whims of the individual could subside into contentment and forgiveness.  Of course, I don't want to approach this naively, and want to convey emphatically that there are no easy answers, the usual suspects may not be guilty of the sins we charge, and supposed heroes may be flawed at best.  That arguing from conventional labels prevents serious thinking, but also that seeking common ground for fear of contention can be just as much an abdication.  That understanding first demands scrutiny of one's one positions, but not the assumption that apologies and doubt means you're being honest.  Perhaps you're just a wimp.  Strife is never valuable for its own sake, but contention sometimes is necessary.  It's been said before, but there is a difference between the use of a dagger and scalpel.  

I understand there's not much flesh on this skeleton of an argument right now, and you may have doubts or questions.  That's fine, and they're welcome.  I hope over the coming months I can, like in Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones¹, put sinew and muscle on them, and in the process, begin the resuscitation of a dying and dessicated culture.

¹Ezek. 37.