I was inspired to write today. I want to say that I haven’t
been inspired like that in a long time, that the reason why my dissertation is
in limbo, the reason why I haven’t written anything substantive in some time is
due to the fact that I have not been sufficiently inspired. I’ve been burnt
out. I have not been able to find the right words. I can’t get what’s inside my
head onto paper. It has been suggested that I am suffering from “writer’s
block,” though I am not sure those suggesting it know what it is anymore than I
do. I have even denied that it is writer’s block, saying that it must be
something else holding me back from writing what I am ultimately here at school
to write. I rationalize, “But I can write other stuff.” And that is partially
true. I’ve written some letters of recommendation, I’ve written some
commemorations, I’ve engaged in rational debate and I’ve even used my powers to
flame a cyber-bully who needed to be taught a lesson. But that writing is like
this writing – it comes more or less naturally to me. When it comes to really
serious writing the likes of which I cannot seem for the life of me to do right
now, I am lost. I have writer’s block, whatever the fuck that is.
So diagnosed, what do I do about it? The kind of writing
that I cannot seem to do is the kind that takes organization. It must, in the
end, be neat and orderly. It must make sense. It has to be perfect, not just
pretty. This “stream of consciousness” stuff is, for me, fairly easy to write.
Also, judging from the feedback I get, it is interesting to others (maybe
because they can relate - I know this sort of introspection, when written well,
interests me). I am no stranger to balking in the face of daunting tasks – it
is a battle I have fought my entire life. It’s not so much lazy as it is a
specialized kind of lazy and at the root of it is fear. It, whatever it is, is
the sort of thing that has to be perfect. This might not be an external
requirement – indeed, it rarely is – but my head has me hesitating if I cannot
see my way through to perfection. And it happened today.
The Communication Studies Department at LSU hosts an annual
lecture that commemorates the late Giles Wilkeson Gray, professor emeritus of
the Department of Speech (what would become Communication Studies) at LSU. It
is an honor to be invited to deliver the lecture and since the series’
inception in 1984, numerous leading scholars in the field of communication
studies have come to LSU to discuss their research. This year, Dr. Carole Blair
with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was our distinguished
lecturer. Dr. Blair is also the current president of the National Communication
Association. Her lecture, “World War I and the Expatriation of American Memory”
was held Thursday, but, for reasons that aren’t important, I missed it.
However, on Friday our department held a colloquy with Dr. Blair and, also for
reasons that are not important, I did make it to that. At the end of the
colloquy, I was inspired to write something really important. I resolved to go
home and do just that.
The colloquy took the form of a question and answer session
with Dr. Blair. Our department faculty
and grad students were given the opportunity to pick the brain of not only a
preeminent scholar in my field, but also the president of our national
organization. I listened intently, but the most interesting question and answer
came right at the end of the session. While I don’t remember the question
exactly, it had to do with the health of our discipline both within the humanities
and in more general terms. It is no secret that public university funding nationwide
is getting cut at an alarming rate. Tuition and other fees for public
universities are skyrocketing as fast as the administrators’ salaries are.
Tenure-track professorships are few and far between and the hardest hit areas
always seem to be within the humanities and social sciences. Communication
studies, like some other disciplines, can fall within the humanities or the
social sciences. According to Dr. Blair, within the larger academic division of
“the humanities,” communication studies is among the strongest. This is nice to
know, even encouraging, but it must be tempered with the fact that humanities
generally are not considered “career path” majors unless one wants to go into
teaching, research or other jobs not known for making a lot of money.
The idea that those with communication studies degrees, or
other degrees within the humanities, are people that can do a multitude of jobs
is one that is again gaining some traction. These “well rounded” college
experiences (otherwise known as a “liberal education,” but the term, "liberal," has
such an negative connotation with so many I hesitate to use it – but suffice it
to say that it doesn’t mean what they think it does) are what good citizens are
made of. This is why those “general education” courses that so many view as a
waste of time and money are required. And thankfully they still are, but
although the world still needs scientists and engineers and chemists and
physicist and all of the other disciplines that fall within the hard sciences,
we also need those well versed in the classical knowledge of the ages. The
histories, the philosophies, the cultures and all that has been learned that
got us where we are today – all of it – is still fucking important.
Those of us sitting in that room and countless others like
it all know that. The question was how do we get that information to those
outside the walls of academia. How do we interest kids in majoring in areas
where they might not achieve the “new” American Dream of striking it rich
(because simply owning a home, providing for our families and saving for
retirement is no longer a big enough carrot). One place that was suggested –
and I don’t remember by whom – is the parents. We need to sell parents on the
value of raising good citizens who are well versed in history, in philosophy, in
ethics, all components of critical thinking. Successful democracies have always
depended on educated demos – a
citizenry that is capable of thinking critically. I don’t know what has caused
all the polarization in the last 20-30 or more years (it’s not as new as some
would like to think), but it seems that part of it is this willingness to
swallow whatever is thrown out there.
And before I forget, I need to say something about this
so-called “liberal indoctrination” of your children when they get to college.
While it is true that college faculties tend to lean towards the left, it is
not a universal truth, it is irrelevant in some fields and it doesn’t matter
anyway. Your kids had 18 years of your influence before they ever got into my
class. There is very little I can do to undo the influence you have had, even
if I wanted to. Are there some professors who try to push their views on their
students? Sure. But they are not the norm and again, it doesn’t matter. And if
your kid comes home with a “radical” thought he or she learned in school,
hopefully it is an opportunity to enter a discussion rather than a war. Maybe
your kid – who is smart enough to get into college - gave this radical thought
some serious consideration. Maybe you should respect that and maybe you can
shed some light - though an intelligent, rational conversation - that your
kid’s professor might have missed. You kids are not robots and we cannot
program them. We can, however, give them the tools to think clearly for
themselves. And you can help, if that’s what you want for them.
So that’s what I was inspired to write about today. But it
wasn’t going to be like this. I thought that I would try to use my command over
the written word to present some good reasons why education should be more
highly valued, more robustly supported. I personally think that a public
college education should be free – call me a radical, but I think an educated
population is good for everyone and as such, everyone should pay for it.
But that’s not what this
is all about anyway. This was supposed to be in the form of an op-ed piece and
I was going to submit it to the New York Times. I read their Opinionator, I
read the other editorials, and I know I can write as well as some of those
commentators, and I know I can write better than some, too. But that kind of
writing is precise, it has to be closer to perfect than my level of confidence
would allow me to get. I balked after just two lousy paragraphs. I would not be
able to just sit down and whip it that out no matter how inspired I was. Never
mind that one does not just “write for the New York Times” (even at 52 years
old, I have a childish naïveté that is probably no longer cute). I am beginning
to think there is much more to this “writer’s block” than meets the eye. And
despite the 1,500-plus words I just puked out, I am still balking at the
daunting tasks in my life. I do know this: This is not good enough for what I
was inspired to write. And that is the truth.