Whose Middle Ages?

Whose Middle Ages?

I was reading my newletter from the Medieval Academy and one of the articles really struck me. It struck me because i've been trying to articulate why I have serious doubts about World History as a substitute for Western Civ. The article (sorry -- I think it's only available in print) discussed an experiment in a World History course for grad students, team-taught by people who specialized in many different areas and focusing on cultural interaction. I admit that it sounded like everyone in the class found it enjoyable, and perhaps even fulfilling, but I wasn't really convinced that it had been useful.

You see, I've always found the cross-cultural studies interesting, and have always brought up the ones that really fit into the storyline, if you will, for my Western Civ. classes. The problem for me is, how much connection is a connection? Does the fact that the Europeans are getting material goods from, say, Muslim traders who may have gotten the stuff from sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia mean that there's a valid point of study in the connection between medieval Europe and Southeast Asia? I'm not so sure, if it's mediated, even if it's mediated by a somewhat 'western' culture. (I hope that last does not offend the Islamicists out there -- I mean it only in that I tend to see at least the first 500 years of Islam as being more connected to the Mediterranean west and Rome's successors -- since it is also a successor, in many ways -- more than a particularly non-western phenomenon).

Mediation aside, one of the things that I just can't get my head around is periodization. It's kind of a big thing in History; it's one of the harder things for many students to understand, in the sense that periodization traditionally relies on a bundle of factors, not least (but really, not greatest) of which is chronology. When we speak of the Middle Ages, we are talking about the West. It's the middle part -- between the ancient and the modern. Heaven knows, we medievalists have enough of a problem trying to define them chronologically, and we continue to debate the whole Early MA (or is it Late Antiquity? or is late Antiquity a period of its own, followed by the Early MA?) - high MA -- Late MA thing. But if World History is in some was a way of addressing or redressing the dominance of western culture, isn't it problematic to define the period to be studied in terms of the West?

Say we all accept that the Middle Ages were from roughly 476 (unless late Antique is sepaate) to roughly 1400 on the continent and 1500 in England. For simplicity's sake, pretend that England does't rate the exception, or we'll never move on. Is there any articular reason to think that this same period is valid for Medieval Africa? Is there such a thing as Medieval Africa? It's a pretty big place, with more than a few different peoples, religions, governmental systems, etc. Do Africanists see Africa as a single (if having manifold variations) culture in the way that Europeanists see Europe or Western Civ people see the west? I honestly don't know, but I'm not sure why they should. The same is true for Asianists: despite various clear cross-cultural influences via conquest, trade, or travel between China, Korea, and Japan or between India and Southeast Asia, or the Steppes and pretty much anywhere those Khans could get to, do area specialists see any truly valid reason for studying the World in the MA that doesn't include the MA having been defined in the traditional, West-based manner?

I mean, just thinking about Japan and China, I suppose one might say that Japan's Middle Ages could range from the 1100s (by Western reckoning) to 1868. Maybe. In which case, would we say that Japan missed out on the Early Modern period? Was Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate Medieval (there's that whole 'F'-word thing and all) or Early Modern? After all, Reformation and Counter-reformation Christianity, mostly the latter, hit Japan at about that time, and Europeans did bring in firearms, which are more Early Modern and Modern than Medieval. What about China? Are the Mongols Medieval nomadic conquering tribesmen? What about the Ming? If we measure periods by any standards other than time, the dates cannot hold across the cultures.

I don't really have anything more than questions at this point, so I'm open to suggestions. A World Middle Ages class just seems to me to be a pretty artificial and problematic construct at best, and a continuation of the imposition of Western standards on other cultures -- supposedly one of the things World history is supposed to help do away with -- at worst.

Other F Words

Some other F Words in my life

Fence and Fear. It's the end of the Summer, and I still haven't written my book review. Classes start in two weeks. I have to go out of town for most of one of them, family obligations having reared their ugly heads. So I am finally painting the fence. It's a big fence, since it encompasses fully half of our lot -- more than a quarter of an acre. It's pickets, so it's a pain in the ass. It does need doing, and I'm paying the girls across the street to help. But really, I think I'm choosing the fence over fear.

It's only in the past couple of days that I clearly realized that the fear was there. Sharon over at Early Modern Notes kindly linked to me, and we've had a nice conversation going in the comments about perceived differences in the way Medievalists approach History as compared to the way Early Modernists approach it, and why. It's something I've thought about a lot, and want to blog on -- after the review. Ralph Luker at Cliopatra then linked to the Early Modern site, and all of a sudden, it hit me: these people seem to be treating me as a colleague. Wow.

For people who know me beyond the pseudonym, this probably isn't surprising -- or at least, I hope not. People who have met me at conferences, people I know from grad school, people I teach with now, seem to accept me as one of their number. Still, I'm never sure I belong. I don't come from an academic background, and have made 'life' decisions that kept me out of the loop for several years while I finished my dissertation and then stayed in non-academic employment for a couple of years after that. Teaching as an adjunct got me back into the life, but left little time for being a scholar. Consequently, I feel like I'm always playing catch-up. And, in my less admirable, often quite lengthy moments, I seem to try to insure that I am. And so, the book review.

First, it's on a topic I'm just not very familiar with. I mentioned this when asked to do the review, but basically, of the people around to do it, I'm the least unqualified. I don't even have to read the book in the original language, but in translation, and I feel pretty confident about what I have to say on that subject. It's an interesting book, too -- so far. It contains a historiographical essay to die for, in the sense that it opens a window on over a century of German scholarship on the subject and its tendency to fit into German political ideology. Not only does this give the non-German reader some insight into a subject that really hasn't been widely available to them, i.e., the importance of national- and nationalist ideologies in framing historical questions, but I also think it opens the way for more research into my own area. That is, I think that many of the ideologies driving German historiography on the subject of the review are also pertinent when looking at the Carolingians. I even mentioned this in my dissertation, but more as something that needs further research. Yet, despite the fact that (reading what I've just written) I seem to have some cogent ideas on the review for what I've read, I'm stalling. I'm stalling because I'm afraid you'll think I'm an idiot. Unfit to join your ranks.

I feel this way at conferences, too. Every time I ask a question or make a comment, I'm sure someone mock my ignorance. It's never actually happened, mind you. Often I end up at the coffee intervals chatting with really nice people I've just met because they wanted to tell me they liked my question and discuss it further. Last conference, I discussed this whole syndrome and being on the job market with just such an acquaintance -- a Name in his field who told me I underrated myself and needed to aim higher than I was. It felt great, but the minute I begin to do anything that will open me up to my peers, I freeze. (As an aside, the rejection from the Chronicle didn't help, either). So I'm off to do the fence. And to mull over the fact that some of you seem to think I should be in the club. And then I'm going to finish the book and write the damned review. Just to find out for sure.

The F Word

Talkin' 'bout something Medieval -- the 'F' Word or, Splitter vs. Lumper

A few days ago (seems like yesterday), Kieran Healy used the dreaded 'F' word. He used it twice -- at Crooked Timber and at his own site. I generally like Kieran's stuff, but dammit, how many times do medievalists have to go through this? Feudalism. The 'F' word. Not actually a term used during the Middle Ages, but a description made up in, IIRC, the 18th c. Since then, defined and redefined as we know more and more about medieval society.

It isn't what most people think it is. Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace proved that. Hell, even historians debate it. But still, sociologists and economists continue to use the term in an increasingly anachronistic (in the sense that so much work has been done on the topic since those fields took up the then-current working definition) sense. What I dread is that I will get these students (well, not exactly Kieran's students, although I now have a colleague who teaches with Kieran who probably will), and will have to fight tooth and nail to explain to them that the 'F' word isn't what they've learned, and instead is many things and nothing in particular. I'll have to explain the nuances of historiographic debate, and then go into much longer and more complex examples from England, West Francia, East Francia, France, and Germany (not to mention various Spanish kingdoms and Portugal), over a very long period, to demonstrate that what they think of as Feudalism never actually existed in the way it's been explained. It will take up a lot of time from my survey classes. It annoys me. It's why I have a deal with one of my colleagues in Economics. Bob never defines the 'F' word and I don't mess around with the 'C' word -- Capitalism.

Kieran will be speaking about both:

These are the people I have to interest in the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism.

Why, specifically, am I concerned about this? Because, as I commented at CT,

... there is no such thing as a transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, since the former is a very loose term that covers a set of political and social relationships, while the other is all to do with economics. Perhaps you mean manorialism? [ ... ] there’s a reason lots of medievalists (the people who kinda know a little something about it) call it “the ‘F’ word.” I don’t think Brown is completely right about it (Brown, Elizabeth A.R. “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,” AHR 79 (1974), pp. 1063-1088), but I also would argue that most of us don’t completely buy Bloch’s interpretation, or at least might say that he’s often misinterpreted in terms of what the actual feudal relationship is.

I would also suggest that people read both Ganshof and Reynolds to get an even more complete picture. Those are just some of the basics -- and I'm not even going back as far as Maitland.

Why, you might ask, does this matter so much to Another Damned Medievalist? It's just a word, after all. And in some ways, I agree. Except ...

I really think that the misuse of and misconceptions attached to this word have done more to present a false picture of the Middle Ages than perhaps any other single concept. For many people, it forms the foundations for a wonderfully romantic (in the small 'R' sense) picture, beloved by the SCA, RPG-ers, etc. It ties into the idea of the entire Middle Ages as "Dark Ages," even though the period once so described never included the later M.A. It supports a mythos that includes a set of Us vs. Them, West vs. East, Christian vs. Islam social, political, and economic dichotomies that provide fodder for explanations and justifications for the furtherance of those antagonistic relationships up to and including the present. This saddens me, because the truth is so much richer than the fiction. Understanding that richness, and the complexities of the interactions between peoples and cultures in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages forces us to reinterpret a lot of what we see in the news. It makes us look again at Spain's patron saint, Santiago Matamoros (talk about anachronism) and Italy's recent attempt to 'recognise a "historical truth" and refer explicitly to the "Christian roots of Europe" in its new constitution' from a new perspective -- just how true are those "historical truths"?

It's only a few steps from such misinterpretations to the deliberate kinds of historical revisionism condemned by James McPherson in the September, 2003 issue of Perspectives, a journal published by the the American Historical Association. McPherson was goaded into speaking out against the misuse of the term "revisionist historians" by the Bush administration. One of the examples McPherson gave was the administration's arguments for the invasion of Iraq:

The administration's pejorative usage of "revisionist history" to denigrate critics by imputing to them a falsification of history is scarcely surprising. But it is especially ironic, considering that the president and his principal advisers have themselves been practitioners par excellence of this kind of revisionism. Iraq offers many examples. To justify an unprovoked invasion of that country, the president repeatedly exaggerated or distorted ambiguous intelligence reports to portray Iraqi possession of or programs to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" that posed an imminent threat to the United States. In his State of the Union message on January 28, President Bush made clear his acceptance of a British intelligence report that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to develop nuclear weapons. This assertion was "revisionist history" with a vengeance; the U. S. government knew at the time it was received that the intelligence was unreliable and learned soon afterwards that it was based on forged documents. Yet not until July did the administration concede its gaffe—and then tried to blame the CIA. That agency took the fall, but with respect to another administration justification for the war—Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda—the CIA refused to provide any aid and comfort. An official in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research offered (in the New York Times of July 12, 2003) a pointed description of the kind of revisionist history practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"

I hate to put forth a "thin end of the wedge" argument, but this much is true, at least in the U.S.: as a discipline in K-12, History is given far less attention than it was 20 or so years ago. It is seldom taught by people with discipline degrees, and frequently by people who have taken as few as two undergraduate courses in the subject. It is taught much as a collection of names and dates to remember, and the critical thinking and analytical skills absolutely necessary to thinking as an historian never make an appearance. It it therefore arguably easier to convince the public that a particular interpretation of history is correct, because frankly, a large number of the public hated History in school because it was badly taught and, if they remember anything, it is either a few unconected events or their particular teacher's interpretation. They are comfortable with the lumpers, and see the splitters as troublemakers.

[ADM finds that the argument has taken on a life of its own in a place entirely unexpected and thinks, "what the hell ..." but goes with it]

Bush is a lumper of sorts. He relies on people not to be splitters. I will not comply. It is our responsibility as teachers to make sure our students know when to lump and when to split. The debate on the 'F' word is a teaching opportunity. Use it wisely ;-)

Anyone surprised?

Anyone Surprised?

J.R.R. Tolkien: Lord of the Rings. You are
entertaining and imaginative, creating whole
new worlds around yourself. Well loved, you
have a whole league of imitators, none of which
is quite as profound as you are. Stories and
songs give a spark of joy in the middle of your
eternal battle with the forces of evil.


Which literature classic are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

I was. I don't think I've really got many imitators, although I have what the spouse calls my acolytes. The first set are getting ready to start their transfer year at Big State U this quarter -- I'm incredibly worried that I haven't prepared them well enough. What if I've let them down??? The rest is kinda true, I think -- especially the song thing. Oh, and the fighting evil. My heroes have always been fighters of evil -- although not necessarily evildoers.

Shoot the Whole Day Down

Shoot the Whole Day Down

Didja know that Rhapsody has no Boomtown Rats? Not that I'd normally mind too much, but there are times I'd like to start my day with "I don't like Mondays," and the Tori Amos version isn't quite the same (although Tori Amos kicks ass). Here's why I don't like Mondays:

The Quarter Approaches

I'm behind as usual. The spouse still can't understand what I do with my day -- although when the spouse asks, it's not, how's the book review going? or how's the new class coming? but rather, when are you going to re-finish the deck? I admit I am the world's worst procrastinator (although my student with the incomplete is pushing that -- two weeks overdue, they're shutting down the Blackboard site on Wednesday, and she's now dumping all this grading on me just as my crunch is is hitting crisis level. Still, I know that, if I'd got my act together a bit earlier, this would not be a problem. On the other hand, this is my first year as a full-time, no running from job to job, academic, with a summer where I can justify not working as a waitress or something. How can I learn how to do this right, if I have to fight the, "but you have the Summer off!" battle?

Proud Extremely Embarrassed to be a Murcan

Paul Hamm is an embarrassment. Paul Hamm is a big, fat (well, really, little and muscular) LOSER. Really. Paul, you little whiner, you DIDN'T win Gold. You weren't good enough on the day and it sucks, but get over it. Dude, aren't you ashamed of yourself? Look at this!

“I shouldn’t even be dealing with this,” Hamm said Sunday after failing to win medals in event finals for pommel horse and floor exercise.

or even, much worse in my opinion,

Hamm simply wants the dispute to be over. He doesn’t feel his gold medal has been marred.

“I personally feel I was the Olympic champion that night,” he said. “If you’re going to open the door to changing the rules, you’re going to open the door to doing everything. That’s why we have those rules in place.”

Paul, you won on a math error. You weren't really the Olympic champion. But here's the deal -- you got to feel that you were for a while. You got to feel that you were really lucky, too, because ... um ... remember the vault? It should have taken you out. It didn't. But you didn't give a championship performance, and you must know it. No one had a clean night.

So please, Paul, be a man. Be a mensch. Be a sportsman. I'm not the only one who thinks you should give up the gold with grace and dignity (although it's a bit late for that, isn't it, you twit). Mike Celizic thinks so, too, although Not for the same reasons:

He [Hamm] may already have missed his chance to show the world that Americans still believe in sportsmanship and to generate the kind of goodwill that this country will never recover, no matter how many times the White House issues statements about how much better off Iraq is now than it was before we brought peace, harmony, democracy and full employment there.

That's a bit hyperbolic -- clearly it's wrong to even imply that Hamm has the ability to make a difference that could right the wrongs wrought by the latest war against Iraq. He's unfortunately right in that Hamm's actions will probably play badly in Korea after the Apollo Ohno fiasco, but that shouldn't be a concern for Hamm. He shouldn't give up his medal for international relations. He shouldn't give them up to make the US look less arrogant, either -- although he should know he's an embarrassment to a lot of us already, and will only begin to retrieve his reputation by giving back the medal.

But dammit, he should give it up because ... well ... it's the right thing to do. It saddens me that this is even a question for him. It's not like the Koreans are asking for a change because the cameras caught something that the judges didn't. I can see how winning a protest on those grounds would rock the sports world.* But that's not the case here. The judges goofed on the math and Paul Hamm should act like a man, not a baby. 'Cause as much as I believe that we shouldn't force our athletes to be international relations experts, they do represent the country. Our tax money (I believe) helps to give them prizes for winning. They have an obligation to make us proud, not to win.

*Just think what might have happened in the 1998 World Cup, had the referees had access to Simeone's attack on Becks, or in 86, when England went down to the Hand of God. And look at what happened to Beckham when England came home. He was in the right, but still not the hero. Just to remind you, Paul Hamm is in the wrong.

I love Ali G -- Spoilers coming up

So last night, we were watching Da Ali G Show. For those of you unacquainted with the show, it's a piss-take on everything. The hugely funny Sascha Baron Cohen, in the guise of characters Ali G, Borat, and Bruno, interactswith and interviews real people. Ali G is the best, because Cohen clearly does some research so that he can deliberately misunderstand his hapless interviewees -- people like James Lipton, John Gray, Naomi Wolf, and last night's Andy Rooney.
The funniest moment last night was when the Bruno character -- the best gay Eurotrash character I've ever seen -- went to Daytona Beach for Spring Break and got these college wrestlers to "teach him to wrestle", scream at the cameras, and show off their nether cheeks, only to find out they were being filmed for "Austrian Gay TV." The saddest was when Ali went in to talk to Andy Rooney. Rooney came off as a cranky old man who thinks far too highly of himself. He started in on Ali for slaughtering the English language, and then, when he could have taken the piss right back, he got up and terminated the interview. Another crybaby. The sad thing was that Ali G gave Rooney the opening to say something both true and useful. He asked Rooney if it wouldn't make more sense to write the news in advance, so that people could avoid all the terrible things that happened. Rooney got all pissy, and then, when Ali G asked if it had ever happened before, had the newspapers ever got it wrong by writing something in advance -- perhaps over an election? -- Rooney, the experienced commentator, chose to have a hissy instead of taking the "Dewey Defeats Truman" option. Pathetic little man. Da Ali G Show is in the worst possible taste (although I still think it ranks behind South Park), but I think some of the satire is brilliant. It's a good note on which to end the week.

Lordy -- is that the time? I have an online class to prep!

Explanation, please?

Explanation, Please?

Haven't had a chance to check on the blogosphere today, and have much in the way of else to do. But I just saw this and am both pissed off and confused. Pissed off, because it seems a really lame reason to deny a person communion. Confused, because presumably the communion wafers are transubstantiated anyway -- so why does it matter what they started out as?? I mean, really. If we are to believe that the miracle of transubstantiation exists at all, why wouldn't it? It's not a spell where a practitioner of magic has to have the right ingredients or it all goes pear-shaped -- it's not supposed to be magic at all, is it? It's supposed to be bloody miraculous. I thought there was a difference, but apparently there's a limit on what miracles can be performed.

My favorite season

My favorite season

At the moment, it's now. Forget that spring thing (although I really love it by the end of winter) -- now is the good season. Football season is here!. Ok, I admit that last link was to Chris Bertram's invite to play BBC Fantasy Football, but that's part of the fun. Even more fun is this! Hee hee hee! To be fair, though, I think the frequently dodgy Mike Riley should have given Everton a penalty -- Cygan committed a blatent foul in the box, and it's a miracle neither the linesman nor the ref saw it.

The other great thing about this time of year is that I start gearing up for school in a big way. It's like there's a switch, somewhere between excitement and panic, that gets thrown when the kids in the neighborhood start talking about going back. It means I have about six weeks to take care of far too much stuff, but I love it. Apropos of that, I've turned in my submission to the Chronicle for consideration to be one of the job-hunt First Person people. I'd love it if anybody can think of a pseudonym for me to use -- ADM is almost as specific as my real name, in terms of the job market!

Also, I just read this really good article by Jonathan Dresner of Cliopatra on grade inflation and the need for faculty to take ownership of assessment before assessment takes ownership of us.

For now, I have to read a student paper (finishing up an incomplete -- interesting, since I'm still a contingent person and not actually employed until the quarter starts (and even then, I haven't yet received my letter of intent) and clean up my office.

Another fine mess

Another Fine Mess

New rules for the rest of the summer:

• Don't forget Bill Maher is back
  
• Stop taking on projects like, uh ...everything! (see below)
  
• Put a time limit on time spent in the blogosphere (note: this requires that Rana, Steve Krause, profgrrl, and ProfB (among others) stop the pseudonym discussion)
  
• get the old stuff done before the new stuff (see above!)

Dumbass projects and why I'm doing them:

1. Refinishing the floors. All of them. Dog destroys carpet on landing, ADM rips up carpet to find hardwood beneath. ADM takes carpet off stairs. ADM and spouse decide to refinish all floors where hardwood is under pet-stained carpet. ADM and spouse fortunately return to partial sanity and decide to call in pros for actual refinishing, but are now committed to pulling up carpet, nails staples, padding, kenneling pets and staying in a hotel for a couple of days.
   
2. Finishing fence. Actually spouse's job,. but must help with trenching and gravelling below fence line. Oh, and staining.
   
3. making spouse a gift before next Monday's birthday -- which means buying unfinished gift and painting it creatively.
   
4. making handmade invitation's for spouse's birthday party.
   
5. giving shower for colleague -- meaning much weeding and cleaning in next few days.
   
6. working on late review so I can write review I just agreed to do -- plus the usual "getting ready for the school year and market" stuff.
   
7. Writing something to send to the Chronicle in the next two days.

Jane, stop this crazy thing!

Oh well -- I think it's taught me one thing about academic summers. If I'm not teaching Summer Quarter, I should just devote the first six weeks of summer to household projects. That way, I'll be so happy to get back to academic stuff that I'll be able to focus on it. Now, off to the shops and the garden.

Miscellany

Miscellany

Messing with Code

Whew -- I think I finally got the stupid comment thing figured out. Ugh.

Who'd have believed it?

I agree with
Condi Rice on something! According to the New York Times, she says:

the United States and its allies "cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon"

but then ...

warned that President Bush would "look at all the tools that are available to him" to stop Iran's program.

Ummmm ... no. We've seen what happens when Bush looks at his tools. You know what, George and Condi? It's like, not your job. Or it is, but not just yours. Here's a thought -- maybe it should be a multilateral decision. In my book, Iran + Nukes = bad news. But then, in my book, almost anybody + nukes = bad news.

Yes, there could be problems with that since, like Iraq, Iran has trading partners less willing to put pressure on them. But maybe, just maybe, my tax dollars would be better spent on getting rid of actual terrorists preparing to attack actual people, and we let the IAEA do their jobs. Call me a flip-flopping pessimist, but I'm more worried about hard-to-track cells with portable weapons or flight training than I am long-range nukes. Of course, we might have to crack down on our own trading partners who harbor terrorists and/or practice terrorism themselves.

What would Condi and George suggest, I wonder, if the Saudis acquired significant nuclear capability and aimed their weapons at Israel?

Changing comments

Changing Comments

Well, Squawk Box flaked on me again, and blogger now offers its own comments, so I've switched over. If you left comments on the previous post, I hope you'll re-post them. Meanwhile, I'll try to figure out how to retrieve the stuff that was already on the comments pages. Pardon our progress, as they say in retail remodeling. Why they say that beats me.

The Good (Academic) Wife

The Good (Academic) Wife

The pseudonymous Julia Goode offers an interesting column in the Chronicle this week discusses academic summer schedules. As with many of the Chronicle's offerings, it has its downside. (Note to self: try not to do what you are about to criticise when submitting the audition "First Person" column ... ) The author seems to imply that her problem is one more limited to legal scholars than to all of us, especially those whose families don't have a tradition of academic employment.

So I try to explain that even though I'm not teaching, I am still "working" and that I need to do research and write an article during the summer. That obligation never sounds substantive enough for a nonacademic to understand that I might not be available for weekly park outings on Thursday mornings.

Other moms seem surprised and dismayed to learn that even though I'm not teaching this summer, my children are signed up for camp five days a week. So I fill my answers with more disclaimers about how my schedule is very flexible and how we're always available for an afternoon here or there. Then I rob Monday night to pay for Monday's trip to the zoo with a playmate and her mom. Or more accurately, I rob January, nearly killing myself trying to finish my article for submission March 1, to pay for the June that I will spend with my kids in the park.

Lady, you're not alone. Really. It's not just a mom thing, either. Granted, this particular professor is perhaps feeling the pressure more than many of us do, since she has a couple of small children and a tenure-track job wherer she is expected to produce a substantial article a year. My hunch is, though, that most academics, especially those whose partners are not academics, have to cope with the same problems. It's true even during the academic year, I think. There seems to be a perception that we only work when we are teaching classes, and maybe grading papers. In my house, it was only after my spouse found out that lots of my colleagues work 10-12 hours a day (I can think of one who puts in more, but he's head of the Faculty Senate Council and Professional Development Coordinator) that he stopped thinking that I was just hopeless at time management. I'm not good at it, but teaching at least one new prep a quarter in writing-intensive classes takes a bit of time to do even reasonably well.

For those of us who have been employed as contingent faculty, I think that it actually gets a bit stickier. For those who find summer jobs (something I thought would go away after I finished college), there is little necessity to justify to others how the summer is spent. For those who are fortunate enough to have the financial wherewithal to "take the summer off," though, it often comes at the same price that the author of the Chronicle piece pays. At our house, for example, summer is a time for projects. Gardens must be tended, yards weeded, decks cleaned and re-finished, interiors painted, and there's a general expectation that the house will be cleaner than it is "when I'm working." The problem is, of course that all of these things take time away from catching up on reading, writing new lectures, prepping new classes, and getting book reviews and articles researched and written. And, of course, landing a tenure-track job is less likely unless those things get done!

All that whingeing aside, I do sometimes wonder how much of this we bring upon ourselves and how much it might have to do with the expectations society still holds of women. Goode says:

Admittedly, summer outings and my pathological need for social acceptance among peer mothers aren't the only suspects in the case of my missing time. Because my husband has clients and other lawyers demanding his attention at specific times and intervals, most interruptions in the schedule fall on me. Whenever our children are too sick to go to school, whenever they have dentist appointments or whenever the heater breaks, I'm the person who stays home to handle the unexpected. Carpet cleaning, furniture delivery, car maintenance, school holidays -- those 8 a.m to 5 p.m. intrusions fall to me.

Individually, the division of labor makes sense. If someone has to take the dog to the vet, my husband's absence will be noticed at his law firm. My absence will not make the piles of unread law-review articles even raise an eyebrow. But in the aggregate, the individual diversions can take a huge bite out of my course prep and research time.

What she says makes sense, but does that have to do more with having a flexible schedule or with her work being perceived as less important? Or indeed, with her own perception of her work as being less important in the grander scheme of her family life? I don't mean that I think Goode is not entirely dedicated to her career -- far from it. I do wonder, though, if women are more likely to make those flexibility compromises than are men. One of the things I like about being a full-time (if contingent) faculty person is that I have an office, and I'm expected to be on campus and available for most of the week. I commute an hour each way to get there -- so I can't just run home to wait for a repairman and go back to the office. I can justify a certain lack of flexibility and get more work done. Before, either when working or in grad school, I'd always been the person who took care of such things, as well as the vet, school appointments and kid things when there was a kid at home. And like Goode says, it makes sense. Sort of.

Why sort of? Because I think part of the problem is that when we are willing to be that flexible, we run the risk of robbing Peter, but paying Paul with exorbitant late fees. Scholarship is actual work. It may not be as tangible as other work, but the more I think about that, I wonder how tangible any white collar work is. Does a programmer have to justify his time at work by saying, "I wrote x number of lines of code today?" When we treat is as something that can be shifted around and put off, we run the risk of devaluing it in our own eyes and thus in the eyes of others. Looking at my male colleagues, I don't see that happening nearly as much. There seems to be much more of an innate sense that whatever they do, their time is worth something. Not worth more, mind you, but of value.

For those who are reading this, thinking that I've not proven the male-female point well at all, I agree. It's just something I'm wondering about. It could also be something to do with how non-academic society sees academics -- or maybe how that translates for people from non-academic backgrounds make a transition to a life of teaching and scholarship. With nothing to compare to, and with no one in the immediate family to understand that in many ways, academe really is another world (although no more so than medicine, law, internet start-ups or restaurants) with different expectations, it's easy to understand a willingness to allow one's work to be undervalued. I knew a couple of guys who dropped out of grad school because of that. So, it could be neither, or both, or some of each ... what do you think?

No mixed feelings in politics

No mixed feelings in politics

According to Professor H. D. Miller, John Kerry is a waffler. Not too surprising, since that's the official right-wing line. Bush, on the other hand, is decisive. And that's better. Not. Face it, folks, both have their places in life -- and certainly in the kind of people who run countries. What Miller sees as waffling (in this particular case, the pro-choice question), I see as an honest approach to a difficult question. People and their opinions change over time. Even values change over time -- not the big ones, we hope, but for example, I know lots of people who, as they have grown older and begun to raise families, have compromised on the "greenness" of their automobiles for safety and comfort. (The queen of the comma strikes again)

In Kerry's case, I think we're seeing someone who really doesn't think abortion is a good thing -- maybe even a wrong thing -- but perhaps understands that the question that lies at the root is not all that clear-cut. What exactly is human life? If it's a fertilized egg, then it's biological life, plain and simple.
But is that the standard? If it is, then how is it that we as a species seem to treat so many other living things with little or no respect -- including, ultimately, ourselves? If we care about biological life so much, should we pollute the way we do? Hell, even overeating should carry a much greater stigma, since we are killing something (unless you're on the all-dairy plan) every time we eat. And let's not even go to the "some (e.g., human) life is more important than dumb animals and plants" argument. I think it's pretty damned clear that, as a species, we have no problems taking the lives of other humans if it suits us.

In terms of plain biological life and its importance, I also have to ask if we then have an obligation to make sure every fertilized egg implants and grows to term. Will we monitor women to make sure that they keep themselves in the best health, just in case they get pregnant? Should we devise some monthly test that tells us whether an egg has been fertilized, and then mourn if it gets flushed away with the endometrium? Should we intrude on the life of every woman who has a perfectly normal miscarriage and is mourning the loss, just to make sure she was doing everything she could to bring that to term. 'Cause she wouldn't be going over that in her head, over and over, would she?

Oh -- but that's not enough to give people mixed opinions on the question of life, you say? Let's speak of the soul, then. Is that what makes humans human? (Although I did hear something about animals having souls ...) But say that's it. The soul. Has anyone been able to demonstrate the point at which the soul enters the body? Does the soul even exist? Aren't these questions best answered by religion? I think they are. I don't know about Kerry -- he hasn't mentioned this particular question. But if different religions teach different views on the soul, its existence, and when it enters the body (if ever), can we let any one religious viewpoint decide for the rest? In countries with a state religion, I suppose that makes sense (although if that state religion were Islam, I'm sure that people here would complain). However, the last time I looked, the U.S. didn't have a state religion. In fact, many Americans pride themselves on the idea that we've been pretty good at separating church and state over the past 220-odd years.


So maybe as a religious man, Kerry thinks one thing, but as someone who has devoted much of his adult life to the service of his country, he is not willing to place his private beliefs above the laws of the land or to impose them on the people he represents. What a novel idea. How American in the best sense of the word.

Summer in the Burbs

Summer in the Burbs

Okay -- it's the end of July and I still haven't finished the things I was supposed to have finished. Some I haven't started. My neighbor's death is another distractions, but one I can at least feel good (in the sense that I am doing good works) about. Today, I picked up kids, took them for ice cream, hung out with family, coordinated with some of the really nice police officers who were there to help, and generally made myself available. More of the same tomorrow.

In the meantime, I have to help a student finish her incomplete, train on a new online teaching software system (although Angel looks even easier than Blackboard), finish a review -- ok, start and finish a review, finish my online course in Blackboard, and do a HUGE amount of yard work.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it. It also helps to explain why some of us blog anonymously. I thought about this a bit more, and realized that I also am unsure of how some of my colleagues would react if they knew I liked video games. I've played a bit this summer, although not as much as I might if I didn't have other things to be doing and if it weren't so damned hot (95 degrees Fahrenheit at 2:30 this afternoon, thanks very much. Or as they say on The Fast Show (known as Brilliant! here in the US of A), "Scorchio."

I got stuck on Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb so I somehow ended up with a couple of new adventure games instead. Much easier to play (no hand-eye coordination) much easier to put down.

Death Strikes the Neighborhood

Nice Guy Finishes First -- or Life Sucks in ADM Land

My neighbor died this morning. He was a really nice guy. I didn't know him well, because he was always doing something. Mostly, I talked to his wife and kids, and we tried to come up with times to get together for dinner or something. The few times we did get together, it was usually to go to see a big opening of a fantasy-adventure film; we all shared a love for many of the same books, including the Harry Potter series.
Today, I learned some things I didn't know. Ken was controversial. He got under people's skin and the caustic sense of humor I found funny upset a lot of people. Or at least that's what was in the news. Me, I just knew him as a nice guy, pretty quiet, interesting to talk to, and devoted to his family. They're a great family, too. It's weird to think of him not around, because he and his wife were such a team. Their kids are great, the kind of kids anyone would be proud to have. Me, I just wish I could do more to help, but then, what does one do? I'm third on the dinner roster, after the Chief of Police's wife and the neighbor who's been friends for years. That's about it.
Part of that's because of who Ken was. Fellow officers are on hand to help with anything the family needs, and they're showing both sensitivity and a really touching concern. I think Ken would have been happy to see how it's all being handled. I just wish he could -- but then, when nice guys finish first, it's never in the way they should.

The Joys of Canvassing, pt. 1

The Joys of Canvassing, pt. 1

I was a little fearful of canvassing, because I'm not the world's greatest Kerry fan, although I felt a lot more confident about going out and talking to strangers once Edwards was chosen. Unfortunately, the canvassing I remembered from my childhood is long gone, at least as far as the Democrats in this lovely western state are concerned. None of this silly door-to-door, talk about the qualities of your candidate stuff -- we weren't to concern ourselves with issues, just with converting likely Democrats to absentee ballot voters. Yup. Go to the people almost most likely to vote Democrat (people who have voted at the polls in 2 of the last 4 elections) and "convert" them to absentee ballots, so that they'll be sure to vote.

We were given lists of addresses to visit, and some pretty inadequate street maps (i.e., mapquest maps without all the streets labeled, hand-highlighted to show us where to go -- except that much of the highlighting was incorrect, since our town has tons of numbered streets that stop and start up again a couple blocks later, or in an apartment complex ...). Each area covered about a square mile, with about 20 addresses. Since our lovely burg gives separate street addresses to each building in an apartment complex, we often had several addresses in one complex, but since the addresses were listed by street, it was impossible to tell which were together! With instructions to mark down people as not home, moved/deceased, or confirmed and/or converted, we set off. I paired up with someone who knew the ropes, and we drove around looking for addresses. Of the lists we were given, we were only able to confirm 2 correct addresses, and got quite a few "not homes" -- not too surprising on a suburban Saturday morning.

After frustration and the 80-plus degree weather started to set in, we began to ignore our instructions a bit. We'd been told not to approach people likely to be swing voters or Republicans, because the point was to ensure Democratic votes, not to make it easier for undecideds and Republicans. We diverged a bit from the script -- when the "wrong" person answered a door, we told them who we were, and if they didn't say that they were voting Republican (one did, in very unpleasant terms), we said we were out registering people to vote. We ended up registering 10 people (the entire day's work for the group was 24), of whom two were the conversions we were supposed to be getting, and a few were people who had just moved and wanted to get registered before the elections. Our district boss was not all that enthusiastic about the numbers, and tried to explain again that "we were targeting these addresses for a specific reason, and we don't want to give the other side any help -- we're trying to get the disaffected voters back."

Yeah, right. Well, if this kind of marketing strategy is the best we can do, I worry about losing. It's so incredibly short-sighted. If Average Joe tends to think of Liberals and Democrats as elitist, how will this help capture the real swing voters? I do understand that the party thinks it's just the first step in a greater marketing strategy, but in the long term (and face it, the elections are not that far away -- if Kerry and Edwards don't win, the Bush people will have another 4 years to try to convince the moderates that they're really Republicans), you have to build relationships. How do you do that? By actually contacting real, live, people, I think. In the six hours we spent looking for addresses last Saturday, my partner and I could have knocked on a lot more doors and probably done more good for the campaign. Here are the party's objections to doing that, and my rebuttals:

Party: If you go door-to-door, you'll end up talking to Republicans and we don't want to make voting easier for them

ADM: 1) if they know we're from the K-E campaign, they probably won't want to talk to us
2) if they want to talk to us, we don't have to mention we're registering voters
3) if they notice we're registering voters, we don't have to mention that the same form is used to register for absentee ballots as for regular registration -- if they care, they'll already be registered -- why re-register?
4) even if they know all of this and want to register for absentee ballots, we don't have to help them or tell them the deadlines to mail the forms -- the worst thing that will happen is that someone who cares might send in the form but remember the Democrats who thought the political process was more important than partisan politics.

Party: We don't want to make it easy for swing voters

ADM: If they're swing voters, we should leave them remembering the Democrats as being helpful, pleasant people just like them, who aren't elitist and who really believe in American democratic (sorry Bob) values. If people are going to vote Republican because they feel that Republicans are more in touch with the little guy, why not show them that's bunk? It IS about salesmanship -- people buy from people they like.

I got the distinct feeling that the party person thought I was a troublemaker. Me, I'd like to knock some party heads together, so maybe they're right.

Any bets on how badly they can screw this one up?

Coming Attractions

Coming Soon ...

Stuff on our trip to Whistler, BC, summer jobs, and how much I hate insurance companies -- WAY more than lawyers. Not to mention canvassing for Kerry and whether I'm going to submit something to the Chronicle to do one of their job market columns next year. Stay tuned!

England 5 -- Portugal 6

Euro 2004 has been a great excuse from news, blogging, etc. Just think -- 4 hours of footie a day, Germany go out at the group stage, and England reach the quarter finals looking like they are finally hitting some kind of form. Not so much. Personally, though, I think the ref was a huge part of the problem. Decided for the hosts whenever possible. He was absolute crap. Still, I've been almost unaware of the news for days. Been unaware of much in the way of work for days. It's been nice.

A random word about evaluations

What I've discovered: either my worst teaching is still really good, or I make myself likeable enough to my students that they still give me good evaluations. Or both.

So here's my new to-do list:

• Finish online class
  
• finish the bloody book review
  
• involve myself in at least three job search activities a week
  
• finish fixing the front garden
  

Sorry it's not more interesting, folks, but I haven't evenn seen the new Harry Potteryet. What with the football and a week of days in the 90s, I have not been too energetic. That must change as soon as the super-spouse goes back to work. The weeds wait for no medievalist, and the tomato plants are becoming bushy. Moreover, the dog and I need to lose 30 pounds, which means exercise for us both. Plus, a job in my discipline at a good college 25 minutes from my front door is opening up. I have CV padding to do. Plus, I may have to find work this summer. Ugh.

Thanks for the quiz, Rana!

Minerva McGonagall, Transfigurations.


Harry Potter Quiz: Which Hogwarts Professor Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

And for the rest of the evening, grading and boxing. Fun stuff!

It's the end of the quarter, folks ...

What Tim Burke said.

Coming soon (I hope): comments on what Laura and Belle are justifiably riled about.

Also, the latest in overpaid administrators. A colleague claims that the president of his college (one of the smallest in the state, with sliding enrollment and little success in gaining capital funding) makes more than the governor, due to what is at least an interesting situation. Named a finalist in a search for a new president for the Southern Nevada's community college system, the Board of Trustees granted the president a raise to keep her. The problem? The $25,000 raise came from discretionary funds, because the state had capped the president's wages. Also, the only people at the college to have raises in the past 3 years were administrators. Oh -- and the president and board had turned down many requests for student-oriented services and filling of empty positions, only to be asked to "do more with less!" Here's the real kicker -- it seems that there wasn't much threat that the president was going to leave. Ask not what an administrator can do for the college ...

Get rid of this on Google!!!

Hey, all -- this site: triple-double U martinlutherking dot org is a link to a white pride (Stormfront) version of Martin Luther King's life and works. Please link to this Martin Luther King site instead. Thanks for the help!

Too Little Time, Too Much To Do

Hence the lack of blogging. I can't do it from work (inappropriate use of state equipment), and I have no time at home. At least not until I turn in my book review and write a couple of lectures and get ready for my observation ...
I suppose that's another way to keep from becoming too depressed about Iraq. Oh -- but I have to say one thing about it. I don't look at the pictures. I won't, if I can help it. I will not be looking for the decapitation footage. I think that that's just not good for the soul.

Life is not an Essay Exam

But sometimes we act as if it were. There are a ton of smart bloggers out there. Lots of them are smart academic bloggers. Some of them blog exclusively on academic life, others blog on broader topics. Those who write about life in the academy approach it from different angles -- many from within, many more from the marginal existence of contingent faculty life, and more than a few having left academe behind. In fact, the latter has taken up Rana is one of the most recent to go. Like the Invisible Adjunct, Rana was unable to find tenure-track employment in her field. More surprising is Erin O’Connor’s departure – at least from the standpoint that she was a tenured faculty member. What isn’t surprising is that, as a critic of the many things wrong with the way colleges and universities are run, she decided to opt out.

Among those who haven’t left are the folks at Cliopatra, a group of scholars that actually includes someone I’ve known for all of 17 years, and the folks at Crooked Timber, many of whom I wish I knew. I read most of these people’s blogs fairly religiously, and comment frequently. I admire their writing skills and use the fact that they blog to excuse my own attempts, always hoping that no one thinks I’m a complete idiot. I also tell myself that reading good writing and writing more myself will help to keep me on track. I’m contingent faculty, you see. My community is therefore limited to the institution of the moment (or, in this happy case, the academic year on a pro rata contract). So I blog and read blogs.

Lately, however, I’ve found myself reading and commenting far too much. I have work I should be doing, yet I am drawn to my peers’ comments on the world around us. I have a review due next week. I have midterms to correct. I have a garden, dammit! I also have two new preps and, since a class was cancelled, an online course to develop by June. Oh – and a grant proposal, and two committees that actually require work. So what the hell am I doing? I want a TT job. I have the opportunity to move in that direction and pad my CV. Can blogging be bad for academics? Am I addicted?

And then it hit me. No. Most of us will have had conversations with colleagues over the last three years – and especially since talk began about invading Iraq – about reasons for low enrollments, students having trouble focusing, students missing class and being treated for depression. I’ve never had a problem believing the folks who claimed that much of it was due to the additional stress of our wartime world. I just never really thought about how it affected me.

These last couple of weeks have been especially awful. We all know it. Stories like this (don’t look if you are trying to avoid pictures) pushed me into a big ol’ morass of navel contemplation. So my blog reading has gone way up. No more just the mutual support of the “life in academia” blogs. Nope – it’s all Iraq and Bush, all the time. It seems to me that I’m not the only one to be doing this, either. Comments and trackbacks bloom in colorful and maddening profusion. Why this upswing? And then it hit me: because you’re an academic geek, doofus. Our students may just stop coping, but we have coping mechanisms. We have learned to argue our points with evidence! We know how to do research! We are used to taking information that might seem to be unrelated and make sense of it! We can do it! We have the technology! If we just do our homework, we can make sense out of this mess! So we read what the people we’ve come to trust and ‘know’ say about the subject, hoping to add to our own knowledge and perhaps validate our own conclusions. We add to the discussion. And finally, we realize that we’re using our training to cope in the only way we can, by trying to make reason out of the unreasonable. Or at least that’s my story.

One of the great things about being a trained historian is learning to recognize biases. I’d like to think it also helps us recognize when we’re spinning our wheels. I have recognized my coping mechanism, and I understand it. Now I can get back to work.

Link to US Treasury press release
(for those who went to the WA caucus the other day)

Why I worry about June 30 or, a lesson not yet learned

We're supposedly handing over sovereignty. Sovereignty means the new Iraqi government can then demand the US leave, and we would have to do that. Or is there some other kind of sovereignty? We haven't left Afghanistan yet. It's a multi-national force there, but one that seems underfunded and that is propping up a government without any real power against the same old warlords.

Six months ago, after being bullied by her in-laws, his daughter, Mallali Nurzi, 26, soaked herself in petrol and struck a match. Alerted by her screams, Mallali's young daughter discovered her mother writhing in flames. By the time the fire was extinguished, Mallali was burned all over. It took her 24 hours to die. In a suicide note to her parents, she explained why she had chosen such a horrific end. "Her husband's family were treating her like an animal," said Mr Shah [her uncle], tears trickling down his cheeks. [... ]
A government mission sent to investigate the problem in Herat, the biggest city in the country's west, reported that at least 52 young, married, or soon-to-be married women had burned themselves to death in the city in recent months. The youngest was a 13-year-old bride-to-be.

If a tragedy like the increase of self-immolation among young women can go on under occupation in a place where we supposedly were victors, can it bode well for Iraq?

Oh my. It's even worse. As I went to look up the link for the above story, I saw this:

Three young girls in eastern Afghanistan were in critical condition in hospital last night after being poisoned, apparently by militants as punishment for attending school.

Is this what the restoration of freedom looks like? Bastards. June 30th. Think about it.

Link to US Treasury press release

Is this why I pay my taxes?

I wasn't actually going to blog about this. I wanted to explore a bit more on Henry Farrell's bit on Academic Calvinism. Fortunately, it's been followed up several times, perhaps best by Naomi Chana at Baraita. I have to say, she's one of the people who makes one believe in an academic Elect, she's so damned good. Still, it is a conversation we have fairly frequently at our institution. The odd thing there is that most tenured faculty consider their positions to be a combination of merit, timing, and sheer dumb luck. Most of them spent time in the part-time trenches before they got their TT jobs and have seen a lot of good people go unrewarded. Oddly enough, the adjuncts have a different attitude. Many seem to think that merit shouldn't come into question at all, when faced with inside candidates who should be entitled purely for having taught developmental English scut-work classes for the last 10 years. That's what I was going to blog about today.

Instead, I'm blogging about something else. My politics may be showing a bit, but I hope that even some of my more conservative readers will agree that at least part of my objections are valid. I pay taxes. I accept that a lot of the taxes I pay go to things I really don't believe in, like egregious amounts of corporate welfare and Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay (I have nothing against the fact that they are duly elected representatives, mind -- Clearly they represent the view of the majority of their constituents. I'm just glad they don't represent me). I do think that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, however, and the last paragraph of this press release crosses one of them. This is, as far as I can tell, a real press release from the Department of Treasury Office of Public Affairs. The last paragraph reads as follows:

America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.

Last time I looked, the President's (any president) political campaigning was supposed to be kept separate from the day-to-day workings of government. Moreover, I don't really think that the Treasury Department should be campaigning for the incumbent. It's not on.

In a related note, this story also irks me. The story tells of a systematic redaction of information that is contrary to the Bush administrations political and moral agenda. I don't know that the Bush administration is the first to do this, but then I haven't always blogged, either, so my comments would have been invisible at any rate. The National Council for Research on Women does have a Feminist agenda (disclaimer to those who would like to think I haven't considered the source. I suppose one might even debate Linda Basch's statement that

Taken cumulatively, this has an enormously negative effect on women and girls.

Even I wouldn't say that, although I certainly agree that an absence of information is detrimental. More importantly, I think that actions like this:

The National Cancer Institute's Web site was changed in 2002 to say studies linking abortion and breast cancer were inconsistent; after an outcry from scientists, the institute later amended that to say abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

and this:

Its report cited a fact sheet from the Centers of Disease Control that focused on the advantages of using condoms to prevent sexually transmitted disease; it was revised in December 2002 to say evidence on condoms' effectiveness in curbing these diseases was inconclusive.

and even this:

At the Labor Department's Women's Bureau Web site, the report said 25 key publications on subjects ranging from pay equity to child care to issues relating to black and Latina women and women business owners had been deleted with no explanation.

are together examples of plain immoral and unethical behavior. We have a right to have full information when making medical decisions. Our taxes pay in large part for the kinds of studies and reports mentioned, and we have a right to see what we paid for. Morality can't be founded in ignorance. And choices can't be moral if they are made out of fear.

too cool for school

:: how jedi are you? ::

We happy few

Via Rana, who followed up on a post by wolfangel, there's some discussion on several of the recent First Person columns in the Chronicle. First, to the happy zoologists, best of luck. Apparently, this duo found jobs in the same general field their first year out and at the same institution! Woohoo!

But seriously. it's nice they found jobs, but I have to agree with most of the comments. They were extraordinarily lucky, and it's hugely annoying that they seem not to realize just how exceptional their circumstances are.

We received a wide range of e-mail responses to our first two essays about our job search. Some readers were encouraging, but the truth is, most were condescending and caustic. Some readers, put off by our optimism, seemed almost eager to see us fail. Such metaphorical face-slapping was eerily reminiscent of our experience applying jointly to graduate schools, when we were told by certain faculty members that our chances of both getting accepted to a doctoral program in the same department were slim to none.
To all of those skeptics, we say: Call us lucky. Call us charmed. Call us assistant professors.

This from a person who claimed:

The only bleak moment came when I was informed that other candidates were being interviewed for the position I had applied for. My spirits were crushed, but only briefly.

Perhaps the fact that people were caustic, condescending, and metaphorically slapping them in the faces was because most of us actually realize that competition is tough. Generally very tough. It turns out that ABD wife was happy to take any of several positions for which she was qualified. How often does that happen? Don't get me wrong -- if this couple are happy, then I'm ecstatic for them. My irritation isn't out of misplaced envy -- I'm always happy to hear that someone got a job, unless they're completely useless. I correspond regularly with colleagues against whom I have competed and may compete again in future -- we congratulate and commiserate with each other as appropriate. What gets me is that these folks are so seemingly clueless about the entire process, and are nevertheless so damned smug. Meanwhile, the Invisible Adjunct has left the profession.

Speaking of adjuncts, my own point of outrage in the last Chronicle comes from the latest Jill Carroll column. It's not that her advice on joining unions is wrong per se, it's just that it's not right.

Why am I not certain? Because I would have to assess whether a union would hurt my situation. Possible employer retaliation is always a concern when dealing with unionization. The labor movement in this country is replete with stories of employers who simply opt to hire nonunion employees when they feel their arms twisted by unions. While a university probably wouldn't or couldn't just immediately fire all of its unionized adjuncts, it might eventually phase them out and replace them with nonunion adjuncts.

Well, duh. That's always the argument against organized labor, though. I work on a union campus, which has its own special atmosphere. All one union, yet the adjuncts treat the full-timers as enemies. Still, when I mentioned a strike once, everybody else said, "Oh, no -- we can't do that, it's against the law." The reality is, if you aren't under contract, you aren't on strike. Adjuncts could make a point (at least here) by refusing to sign contracts. The adjuncts wouldn't be fired -- but there would probably be plenty of people to take their places, unless the union were at least state-wide. Isn't it funny that grad students who are TAs can strike, yet MA and PhD adjuncts can't?

At any rate, Carroll walks a fine line between defending the rights and reputations of adjuncts and their qualifications and bending over for the institutional Man, promoting the idea that adjuncts can be happy and productive with their lot, if they just shift their expectations or work a bit harder. Adjuncts should be happy that they have metaphorical shoes, because there are a lot of PhDs who go around barefoot. While it's a good thing that she's carved out a niche that she's comfortable with, it cannot justify a system that is so patently unjust and which, in the long run, really will damage higher education as a whole. What Carroll's attitude demonstrates most clearly is that a large number of academics are no better off than Wal-Mart workers when it comes to job security fear as a motivating factor. What is sadder to me is that the Wal-Mart workers seem more able to make their own circumstances known, while we academics, with all of our skills, generally bury our heads in the sand.

Life interrupts blogging

Well, I should have been working on my book review this weekend, but it was sunny and warm, and the veggies needed transplanting. So, I planted a bunch of heirloom tomatoes and three kinds of basil, carrots, and radishes. Cukes go in tomorrow from seeds, and broccoli starts from the spouse's greenhouse. Then it's all about turf/sod. Lots of rolls of it to be removed from the yard. Thank goodness the days are long, because here's what else I need to do:

• Prep this week's classes (showing Le Retour de Martin Guerre makes that a bit easier)
  
• Write a midterm for the survey
  
• Aargh! correct paper proposals!
  
• Begin work on online Ancient course,due end of quarter
  
• Write a book review for an online journal
  
• write a grant application
  
• start outlining an article
  
• write many thank you notes to friends and colleagues
  
• blog
  
• keep up with the garden.

Why am I telling you this? Simple -- I'm not feeling academic bloggy, but hope that putting my "to do" list out in public will make me get it all done. More academic stuff later -- John Holbo has made it more of an imperative -- I think.

Oh -- last note for the day. saw this on Friday night -- loved most of it. Saw this last night -- apologies to all my friends who warned me. What a waste of part of my life. Forget red and blue pills -- this one begs for a cyanide capsule or serious alcohol.

What's the point of all those diplomas ...

...If the damned students are going to argue with you at every step? I have two killers this quarter. Pleasant, but young men with attitude, I do believe. I think they might have more respect if I were a male person like them. As it is, they just argue. And argue. And split hairs that I tell them don't exist. Ugh.

Eszter at Crooked Timber has a fun post here -- I got over 45% on the nerd quiz. I'd already seen the Chernobyl photos -- hauntingly beautiful.

That's me blogging for today. I'm far too annoyed to blog about anything else today. It was a typical Monday.

The 'F' word strikes again, or the lumpers strike
back

The economist next door and I got into it this morning because he used the f word. I replied that it wasn't an economic system, and that there was a very good argument for it not being a system at all. I said that if he wanted to talk about manorialism, that was pretty much economic, but that the feudal thing was an arrangement (or series of arrangements) between members of a warrior nobility. As it went on, I realized we were in the middle of a classic lumper-splitter argument. He claimed to be looking for similarities, while I will always look for the exceptions -- and with feudalism, it's all exceptions. He brought up an author I'd never heard of, and about whom the economist knew nothing, I brought up Duby, Ganshof, and Brown, all strangers to the economist, and we had to agree to disagree. I dunno -- I just am not very good at making those big, overarching statements without documentation. That, and I like to know that I'm comparing apples to apples in terms of using words like "class." Oddly enough, the conversation came out of my trying to justify extra credit for attending a free dinner to learn more about world poverty, sponsored by some of my colleagues. His justification went something like, "but isn't there poverty and hunger and war in the stuff you cover?" Of course there is ... I just don't know that it's a productive use of class time to discuss even the very real similarities between the devastation wrought by the 30 Years' War and that wrought by war and drought in the Horn of Africa. That just seems to me more of a PoliSci or Econ or even Philosophy kind of discussion.


It's also the kind of thing that drives David Horowitz crazy. I don't supposed he'd really be pleased to have anecdotal advice that disagrees with his theory on liberals in the classroom. I'm the most liberal (pretty much the only liberal) among my grad school cohort. Most of them are employed, and none of them hide their conservatism. Another colleague who just got a TT job is also pretty damned conservative, but I won't say who it is till he mentions it on his blog. Moreover, I think the man's insane if he thinks students won't use political discrimination as a new way to work the system. They already do. Students frequently use essay exams and papers to rant (coherently, if one is fortunate) about issues barely related to the assignment. If they receive a low grade (in my class, any essay that has no thesis and/or does not address the question is going to get a pretty low grade), they assume it's because I didn't like their views. Me, I think that an essay purported to be on the effects of the World Wars on women's and minority civil rights and socioeconomic status should not be five pages of how women's rights are bad for society, though it's ok that black people get to vote now. I got that paper once. Really. As for the report of the student who wrote on "Why Saddam Hussein is a War Criminal" rather than "Why George Bush is a War Criminal," I have to say that, if the assignment really exists (I can't find any citations that don't go back to Mr. Horowitz or Students for Academic Freedom), it sounds ill-judged. That said, it's for a criminal justice class -- if the idea of the assignment were to compare the actions of the Bush White House with the standards of international law or with the actions of other people accused of war crimes by those same standards, it seems perfectly vaild. The student's paper doesn't fulfill the assignment. Perhaps he should have addressed the assigned question but included all the examples he could find that prove George Bush is not a war criminal. If he'd done that, his argument for political discrimination might hold some water. It's good to compare apples to apples.

It's hard to spring forward when you lose an hour of sleep!

It's division meeting day, I'm sleepy, and very behind. Somehow I need to re-read all of The Debate on the English Reformation by Wednesday, finish an online course proposal, and write a lecture for tomorrow morning's class. Hence the lack of blogging of note.

Medieval Academy: days 2 and 3 or, I am a scholar, too

Or am I? Am I a scholar if I think like one, talk like one, but don't produce like one? It's a good question, I think. Medieval Academy answered it for me. A funny thing about contingent work is that it makes it very easy to marginalize oneself. By this I mean specifically that, not having a "real job", one begins to believe oneself to be less deserving, less capable, less than those colleagues who have made it. It is the most insidious part of contingent work, I think. In my case, I hold on to the knowledge that I am a really good teacher and a good colleague. I have external validation for this, which helps, and it's been good in that I know I want a job where teaching is the primary focus. It even allows me the luxury of knowing I'd be perfectly happy at a community college, because I truly believe in their mission and find the relationships at that level really rewarding. When I look around at other contingent faculty (in person and in the blogosphere), however, I realize that we are all quite capable of taking the long-term negative point of view, the one that somehow makes teaching the All. Taken a step further, contingent faculty can easily find themselves in a downward spiral of resentment that only worsens when teaching experience doesn't quite make up for not having kept up with the field, and the all-too-rare new line is filled by someone who hasn't been teaching as long, but has delivered papers, etc.

What has this to do with Medieval Academy? Well, first, I got to say thank you to Constance Bouchard. This is an amazing woman. One of the things the American Historical Association has been addressing more and more lately is the problem of contingent faculty. Professor Bouchard recently wrote addressing the problem from a pretty unique perspective -- she adjuncted for fourteen years before getting a tenure-track job. During that time, she produced some very well-respected work. I didn't get a chance to ask if she had a supportive spouse or independent wealth, which can and often do play a role in adjunct productivity, but in many ways, it didn't matter. Right in front of me was an example of a woman who hadn't given up.

Also, I ran into people I'd met at other conferences. These people acted as if I were one of them, as did most of the people I met, despite my "local community college" title on my badge. I asked questions, some not as coherently formulated as I would have liked, and they were addressed -- in fact, sometimes people came up afterwards and told me the questions were good. One nice grad student actually hunted me down a day after I asked him a couple of questions and said that they had helped him to clarify part of what he was working on. Finally, I had a very nice conversation with a reasonably well-known personage who spoke to me as a colleague and to some extent as a mentor (pretty damned cool on 36 hours' acquaintance) on teaching approaches, materials, and why the hell wasn't I putting some of my ideas on paper. All I can say is that the conference was like having someone take a shovel to my thick head. I really do love the scholarship. and any exile I feel is self-imposed. So I'm going back to basics. Even if I haven't got the time to read more that 20 pages a day, or write more than a couple of paragraphs here or there, they add up. No more, "I can't have it both ways." I can. I am too a scholar -- if somewhat snail-like in pace.

As far as the conference itself went, I thought the teaching Medieval Islam panel disappointing. Only one of the panelists took a practical approach. The others were all crusades people, and gave very interesting points of view, but took up a good bit of time with them, so that the actual discussion was limited to a few questions. The lack of time really meant that there was almost no sharing of pedagogical approaches, useful sources, etc. I think, though, that it did lead to some interesting and useful private conversations over the course of the weekend.

The panel on feuds was really good -- really brought some good questions to mind on the nature of feud and how closely it is tied to kin-groups: can there be feuds within kin-groups? what is the line between war and feud? What is the line between civil war, war, and feud? I also enjoyed the Carolingian panel -- the only one. The 8th and 9th centuries get short shrift these days, as what used to be the Early Middle Ages becomes more and more subsumed into the more-recently-defined Late Antique. Now it seems that the Merovingianists are Late Antique, but the Middle Ages seem to start in a lot of people's minds with the 10th c. At any rate, it was an interesting panel, although really more on texts and scholarship than I normally like. Still, it also gave me some good ideas. There were a couple of other panels I went to that were good, but frankly, I was pretty sleepy. I'm sure many readers know how it is -- meal, sit in stuffy room, often darkened; break with coffee in small cups, sit in stuffy room; meal, not enough time to get fresh air, sit in stuffy room; coffee, sit in stuffy room; alcohol, sit up talking too late; early meal, sit in stuffy room ...for three days.

Still, it was a good conference, as far as I can tell. On the down side, no one has cleaned my house in days, and only I can prep this week's classes, so I'm off.

Medieval Academy, Day 1

Finished posting my Blackboard stuff, put a book on reserve, and ran down to the conference. The first person I saw was someone who was on my committee. I wasn't sure he'd remembered me after all these years, but he did. He's a Fellow, though, so I got the distinct feeling I was a lesser person. Went to some interesting papers, including Heidi Marx-Wolff's really interesting study of madness and possession (and saintly cures thereof) in 14th c. Italy. Also a really cool paper in the same panel by Cynthia Ho on the representations of the life of St Francis in Orta. The third paper was iffy, at best, I thought. Just not too well organized or presented, although there were some interesting points. Part of a dissertation in progress, though, so it was understandable.

The reception at the end of the evening was fun. Met some very nice folks, and even managed to get kinda spoken down to by one of the respected dinosaurs known for his acerbic nature (or so I gathered). A good time was had by all. Now I'm off to learn about teaching Medieval Islam in a post 9/11 world.

Teaching and Arsenal

What do they have to do with one another? I really like them both. I got the dread evaluations (last quarter's) back yesterday. The worst class average was a 4.34 on a scale of 1 to 5. I am beaming quietly. One actually had a comment that said I should get tenure! Chance would be a fine thing -- I don't even have a TT job! Still, it's nice to be liked. Truth be told (ah, the clichés are flowing today), I was very lucky. I had classes full of people who were bright, likeable, and willing to participate, even when they didn't always do the work. It's easy to teach people who want to learn, and it's very hard not to benefit from all that positive energy. This quarter seems to be going the same way -- I have students who are working ahead on our discussion boards, and someone commented today that I put things into context really well. Imagine! even better -- this is not and April Fool's joke.

So, I'm off for a day or two, but hope to blog a bit about the conference. The toughest part is that I will have to record the big game. this is not good. Not quite as bad as my sister scheduling her wedding for the same weekend as the World Cup Semi-Finals, but almost. Not sure why we should be that concerned, though. Edu's doing well, and there's a very solid midfield without Gilberto. Cole is a loss, but frankly, I'd just as soon he didn't play against United, since they bring out the thug in him more than most. Besides, Clichy seems to be doing rather well. As for Cygan, I admit Wenger might have made a good buy, but he's not really up to the quality of the rest of the team. Still, if Campbell's groin injury flares up, things could go pear-shaped.

Shoot -- If there weren't going to be a morning panel on teaching medieval Islam, I'd stay home and watch the game.

Changing Colors

Also known as procrastinating badly. Or skiving off. This is what happens the first week of classes when one class dies from under-enrollment. No FTEs for me! Of course, the bloody thing was listed incorrectly in the course catalog -- as a 9-hour per week plus online component for a paltry 5 credits. Probably shouldn't be blogging from school, either; I'm chalking it up to a professional development rant.

Anyway, I've changed the colors to something I hope is less offensive (the spouse thought the old color scheme was icky), and am now going to write a dread lecture for tomorrow's Early Modern class. Actually, I do need to hop it -- I'll be at the Medieval Academy Annual Meeting, which is in Seattle this year -- otherwise, I'd be out of it, having spent all my travel funds for the year.

As a brief note, though, as I promised on the Invisible Adjunct site, I'll be blogging more now, and about more substantial stuff. Hell, maybe I'll even come out of the anonymity closet, although I'm not sure about that while I'm on the market. At any rate, you can expect to hear about the Medieval Academy. If you'll be there, look me up!

These are a few of my favorite rants

Lots of things going on, and no time to blog. That's my life these days. How do other academics do it? Blog, grade, teach, keep up in your field, write lectures/craft discussions, do new preps, do service, write that bloody book review (oops! thank goodness I have two more months), clean the house, walk the dog, keep the garden from overflowing, and look for permanent work -- not necessarily in that order? Which leads me to the question of why non-academics think academics have it so good.

I am not complaining about the amount of work per se, just so you know. David Lester might still call me a major whiner, but then he seems to be particularly non-service oriented. But really, I do work harder at this than any other job I've ever done -- at least during term. And there's a lot more stress -- there's this overwhelming guilt if you feel you aren't giving good teaching. I wouldn't change it for the world (unless I have to go back to adjuncting for too long, and then it will be a difficult decision based mostly on finances), but it's very time consuming.

Still, I am now deliberately taking time to comment on a few things I think are important -- in no particular order:

• The firing of commentator Sandra Tsing Loh -- which I think was plain outrageous. This response by the NPR Ombusdman helps mellow my intense irritation with NPR, but not much. I know it wasn't within their purview to keep it from happening, but it was pretty darned wishy-washy of them to not speak out loudly against it.
  
• Most of the comment section and in fact the initial editorial by Ruben Navarette, most of which seem to be more of the Gen X same. Excuse me, but if the boomers are supposed to be the "Me Generation," how do we catalog the Gen X-ers? I know a lot of really nice Gen X-ers, BTW, who really aren't disaffected, apathetic, selfish, and full of opinions that are based on faulty half-baked conclusions, but then, there are those who really are the rule. Maybe it's vengeance against the boomers? I dunno -- I think I may have to get back to this one, because the more I think about it, the more annoed I get. It wouldn't be so bad, but I'm about to grade a bunch of papers, many of which are written by X-ers who I know have started with the conclusion and looked for evidence to back it up, instead of looking at what the evidence says.
  
• And speaking of argumentation and evidence, I'm still very concerneed with the entire Bush political apparatus. And the way they work. You know, that repetition of semi-truths in hopes that the rest of us will forget the question? Condy Rice is an expert. Never met a question she couldn't sidestep. But she does it well in her little mock Chanel suits and her throwback to Jackie Kennedy hair. Give the woman a pillbox hat, somebody.
  
• People acting as if it has to be either Martha Stewart or Ken Lay. Or Halliburton, for that matter. Put them all in jail.
  
• Outsourcing. Not going there in depth at the moment, but for the record, I think that, if people want to shop at Walmart and get Walmart prices, they need to accept that jobs will be done abroad by cheaper labor. Ditto for high-tech services. You want to have an American job and earn decent wages? Look for the union label, people. That said, I bet we could hire a lot more people in American companies -- or at least not renege on proised benefits-- if the top execs didn't make as much as 400 times what the worker bees make.

I'll be back on some of those later. Perhaps I'll even be attacked for my horrible ultra-liberal, aging hippie beliefs. Please note: Aging ever, hippie never.

Do not read if you are squeamish! What I did on my weekend that wasn't academic was this. Took the cat to the vet, that is. They did the messy part, but had to put the cat under.

Oh -- I also went to the state caucus. Now I'm a delegate for the next round. Go figure.

Interesting conversation going on over at Invisible Adjunct. It started out as an ethical discussion, but has turned into a bit of a brouhaha.

Speaking of ethical discussions, I now have to worry about this. Washington state taxes are just about the most regressive in the nation -- the bottom 20% income bracket pays approximately 17.6% of their income in taxes while the top 20% pays an average of 6.5%. Now the "Education Governor", aka "the only Republican ever invited to give the Democrats' response to the State of the Union Address," has us over a barrel. We might get some more money, but only if we stick it to the poor. Oh -- and of course, there's nothing in the measure to convert adjunct positions to tenure-track ones. 'Cause in Washington State, we care more about price than value.

My very late thoughts on the the AHA anuual meeting:

People were right. The meat market set-up tends to create a group of job-sekers who exude fear, paranoia, jealousy, and hatred. That said, one of the nicest people I met was interviewing for the same job, and I was glad to have met him. Oddly enough, we actually were vaguely acquainted through the blogosphere anyway.

The other thing is that there aren't nearly enough minorities in History -- I popped my head by the minority historians reception, and it was not very crowded. At the panels I attended, the only person of color I saw was my friend Annette, who gave a great paper on hostage brides. Lots of female medievalists, not many other minorities represented.

Also, conferences are good. Especially for those of us in the world of the two-year institution. Although there is definitely a kind of academic hierarchy (everybody is supposed to want to be at a Research I school and/or Ivy, although most of us get jobs that demand more teaching than research), my ego is such that I have no problems arguing points with my senior colleagues, and I enjoy the buzz I get when people find out I'm "just" a CC person. on a sadder note, I went to the CC reception, and was dismayed to find that there were colleagues who felt the need to have their PhD status listed on their badges. It's kind of like admitting that CC faculty have to prove themselves to the "real" professors. Such nonsense.

So much for New Year's resolutions. I was going to blog regularly, but courses seem to have got in the way. Here's my Resolutions, though:

• Blog more
  
• get the rest of this quarter's assignments up on Blackboard ...
  
• Actually read Matthew Innes' book
  
• Read the book I'm supposed to be reviewing for H-net
  
• do a bunch of job apps by next week
  
• Blog more
  
• not feed the troll known as godless capitalist