Academia vs. The Real World

Reading the article by E&S, I couldn’t help but notice how well the article proves the point made by Gere in the most practical of manners. If anyone needed convincing of Gere’s point in her article (the need to break down the traditional ‘academic’ walls in order to include a wider variety of people in the exclusivity that is academia), the article by E&S provided a concrete example of exactly how readers can be alienated from the writing style so loved by members of the so-called ‘academy’.

Getting into the actual point of the article by E&S, there were several similarities in subject matter to Gere’s article. Both articles focused on the way certain styles of writing can affect readers. Gere referred to ‘extracurricular’ writers (a less accusatory tone, in my opinion), while E&S referred to ‘non-academic’ sources in a similar capacity. However, this is also where the articles differed: Gere advocated a more favorable consideration of ‘extracurricular’ writers, whereas E&S seemed to be dismissing the non-academics as lesser because they do not buy into the stereotypical bullshit of academia:

“When people consider writing to be not plain enough or deliberately obscure, what they really mean is that the writing does not appropriately address them . . . Academic writing, however, is seldom meant for an average audience; it addresses an audience of specialists” (382).

Indeed, many articles written in academia are meant for publication in professional journals or for education of fellow specialists on a certain topic. However, the fact remains that often there exists a simpler means of communicating ideas, rendering the hackneyed obscurity of clear points rather useless (except to enhance the image of the writer submitting the piece in question). Additionally, it would seem to me that, while an article concerning the particulars of astrophysics (or what have you) may be meant solely to educate peers within the field; there could be some benefit in allowing some lesser humans to be able to read and comprehend the material as well. Making education accessible to all who wish to pursue it seems more sensible to me than purposely obscuring information so only certain individuals may obtain it.

As I have illustrated, literacy in terms of the article by E&S seems to be defined in terms of competency. The academics who are most capable of deciphering (or most eager to swallow) the bullshit so often put forth as an earnest effort to sound more intelligent are deemed more literate than those who have less patience or less academic ability to do the same. This suggests to me a general view that literacy is somewhat like an organization of elitists eager to prevent others from joining - for fear that it might sully the impeccable reputation of those already admitted.

My scathing comments seem to indicate a disdain for academia, and that is simply not the case. However, if we are to reach the goal that Gere puts forth, of including all learning styles in our methods of education, and attempting to end the exclusivity that is so prevalent within the academic world, something has to give. It seems that the highest ranks of academia are fueled solely by the ego, and this isolates that elite sphere from the real world.