I wrote this article last semester after one of our class discussions. I haven't made any revisions as of yet to my initial "brain dump", so your comments/critiques are quite welcome.
One of the CCC classes I mentor for recently discussed the pros and cons of Gordon in
His comments brought to mind mixed emotions. On the one hand, I remembered my frequent frustration in the two years I volunteered, and then interned, with Gordon in
Additionally, “academics” is something in which I have invested a lot of myself. I take my classes seriously, and take learning outside the classroom even more seriously. I want to teach at a college or university someday. I believe in the value of research and conferences and journals. I envy students are large universities who are encouraged and given money towards these pursuits more consistently.
And yet, and yet. In spite of my frustrations while working with Gordon in
To be sure, academic inquiry is important. While the consequences of intellectual poverty are not as immediately drastic as those of economic poverty, a society where physical needs are met but intellectual needs are not would have a certain emptiness to it – perhaps a Brave New World sort of emptiness.
But completely apart from a debate about our obligations to alleviate either economic or intellectual poverty, I think Gordon in
There was something about the academic environment at
In spite of my distaste for forced attempts to “connect learning to everyday life”, I am increasingly convinced that some sort of connection needs to be at the root of a healthy, thriving academic environment. While this connection need not be as explicit as is sometimes attempted, an absence of any connection whatsoever seems to kill something in the human spirit.
While going through this intellectual crisis, I asked several of my professors why they were studying in their respective fields – what had drawn them into this thing called “academia”. Several were completely taken aback by my questions – as though they had never considered that there might be a “why” behind the decision. Ultimately, they told me that it came down to whether I believed that “academic inquiry” in and of itself was important.
And, I have decided, I do not. Academic inquiry with no connection to humanity is not worthwhile; it is a sort of intellectual gluttony, perhaps the “vain curiosity” that Augustine condemned. This connection to humanity need not be something as explicit as the desire to alleviate economic poverty, but there needs to be a connection of some sort.
I am not sure of the reasons I am so convinced of this, but I think it has something to do with the amount of suffering in the world, and the ways that I believe Christianity forces us to face that suffering in all of its tragedy, and to understand the incarnation and resurrection of our Lord in all of its glory. In a world where “our struggles are not against flesh and blood”, and in a world that daily confronts so much pain, it seems irresponsible to waste away my time in intellectual hobbies that serve only to puff up my ego, or to solidify the walls of the ivory tower.
And so, I defend Gordon in
And all of this gives a depth to my understanding of life that no amount of academic inquiry can achieve. It gives fullness to my understanding of what it means to be human that no books or journals can communicate adequately. And if the concern is to “pop the Gordon bubble” (if such a thing exists), the answer is not primarily to be found in the greater ivory-lined bubble of academia, but in inviting relationships with people who will challenge the way we make sense of the world and make sense of ourselves – and, indeed, recognizing that there are things that we cannot, and will never be able to, make sense of at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment