I hope you won't be offended, but I like Julie Burchill.
George Wilson
Edinburgh Napier University
Merchiston Campus
________________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Peter Samuels [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 January 2014 13:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Class and bookishness: a rant on the uses of literacy
More specifically, obscene messages on this list contravene JISCMail’s ethical policy:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ethics.html
According to this policy statement, it is the responsibility of the list owners to remove such messages.
Kind regards,
Dr. Peter Samuels, MA, PG Cert MS DD HE/FE
Academic Skills Tutor
Centre for Academic Success
Library and Learning Resources
Birmingham City University
City North Campus
Perry Barr
Birmingham
B42 2SU
Tel. 0121 331 5687
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-excellence/centre-for-research-in-education/people/peter-samuels
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Crawford
Sent: 03 January 2014 12:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Class and bookishness: a rant on the uses of literacy
The rationale for not swearing / using profane language in a ‘professional’ context is widely documented in institutional policies, e.g.
Staff Social Media Policy<http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/InformationServices/Services/Security/FileStore/Filetoupload,413416,en.pdf>
Higher Education Academy Forum Agreement<http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ntfs/Forum_user_guidev1.pdf>
Codes of Conduct<http://www.cant-col.ac.uk/about-canterbury-college/corporate-information/policies-and-strategies/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf>
Tim
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Hardman
Sent: 03 January 2014 11:21
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Class and bookishness: a rant on the uses of literacy
WARNING FOR THE EASILY OFFENDED: This post is mildly sweary!
I agree with those who've suggested that the original post should have come with a short preamble about why the cut-and-paste article might be of interest to the group. For me, that would be the case regardless of whether the article had contained swearing or not.
As for whether swearing is unprofessional, I'd be interested to know whether anyone can produce a clear rationale for that. Or is this as arbitrary as the use of prescriptive grammar that was discussed recently? I'm not naturally inclined to swear in front of students, although if words that are culturally defined as "swearing" actually helped convey a message then wouldn't they be justified? I imagine in some contexts that swearing might be an integral part of teaching. Would a lecturer in English literature have to avoid discussing "They fuck you up, your mum and dad...." on the grounds that it is unprofessional?
Btw, I think I did recently use the term "bullshit" in front of a class recently, when discussing the weaknesses of interviews as a method of selection, specifically referring to the kinds of things interviewees say. As far as I'm concerned, that word better expresses what I meant than anything else that comes to mind!
David
On 3 January 2014 09:52, Kim Shahabudin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
While I consider inventive profanity one of my top leisure pursuits, I agree with Tim that it's inappropriate in a professional context. However I'm assuming Rhian Jones isn't a member of this list and therefore didn't write her blog post for our benefit, or in a 'professional' learning development context. I suspect that if the original post had been limited to a link to the blog and an explanation of why it was worth reading, there wouldn't be any cause for any of the following posts to comment on the language and we could all have focused on the value of the message.
Actually what I'm most concerned about in all this is the number of you who were clearly reading your work emails and thinking about work stuff over the Christmas break. We work hard enough, people! Let's cut ourselves some slack for a few days in the year!
Happy New Year to all,
Kim
________________________________
Dr Kim Shahabudin, FHEA, Study Adviser, Study Advice & Maths Support
1st Floor, University of Reading Library, Whiteknights, PO Box 223, Reading, RG6 6AE
• 0118 378 4614 • www.reading.ac.uk/studyadvice<http://www.reading.ac.uk/studyadvice> twitter: @unirdg_study
Please note that I now work part-time and am not usually on campus on Mondays.
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Tim Crawford [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 03 January 2014 09:37
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Class and bookishness: a rant on the uses of literacy
Upon returning to work yesterday and catching up on emails I was very disappointed with the swearing in Rhianne Jones’s blog. I think the profanity was unnecessary and detracts from the cogent arguments made. In my view, swearing is unprofessional and falls short of the erudite posts that have permeated the LDHEN list since its inception.
Moving forward, perhaps it would be appropriate to either warn readers about the use of expletives in an imminent post, or (more preferable IMHO) to circumvent their usage within this forum.
Warm regards,
Tim
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Gordon Asher
Sent: 29 December 2013 22:36
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Class and bookishness: a rant on the uses of literacy
Class and bookishness: a rant on the uses of literacy
http://rhianejones.com/2013/12/27/on-class-and-bookishness-a-rant/
DECEMBER 27, 2013
Probably the last useful thing that the now semi-tragic stopped clock Julie Burchill ever wrote, in respect of her working-class provincial origins, was this:
If you don’t read books, you really have been fucked over in a major way… To read, voluntarily, is the first step to asserting the fact that you know there is somewhere else.
Read, or you’ll get fucked over. Growing up, I read like fuck. I read out of boredom, I read to escape my surroundings and to understand my surroundings, through history and politics and music and literature and whatever there was left over. I also read because I wanted to write. And a thread that ran throughout my reading was, indeed, the sense that not to read was to, somehow, allow yourself to get fucked over.
Furthermore, once I began to read, finding stuff to read wasn’t a struggle. I read at school, on and off the curriculum – ‘comprehensive’ might mean cash-strapped and struggling, but it needn’t mean incapable of giving you a good education in spite of your circumstances, and it needn’t mean not having books. My town had a single bookshop, but it also had a library. I went on expeditions to larger towns further afield and, along with music<http://rhianejones.com/2010/01/28/a-good-band-is-hard-to-find/>, I brought back books. A huge amount of secondhand books, old books, books that no one other than me was likely to read in the twentieth century, okay – but new books, too, weren’t beyond my purchasing power. I read books, I read newspapers, I read journals, I read samizdat Riot Grrl and Manicsfan zines. I just read. Reading is, in no small measure, how I got to where and who and what I am today. I read in order to combat alienation, boredom and despair; in order to learn what existed beyond my horizons and what I might be capable of; in order to succeed academically; in order to live and study in places beyond my socioeconomic imaginings; and, ultimately, I read in order to construct an independent life for myself virtually from scratch. I read voraciously, avidly and eclectically, which is why I now know so many big words<http://rhianejones.com/2013/05/20/my-father-still-reads-the-dictionary-every-day-he-says-your-life-depends-on-your-power-to-master-words/> – a fact not unrelated to my subsequent social mobility, but a cause of it, not an effect.
So you’ll imagine how aggrieved I was to read the following:
“The bookshelfie and shelfie alike are ways not just to geek out with fellow book fiends, but also to send a signal about your cultural, social, and class position. Owning large quantities of books, being familiar with them, frequently referring to them, working in an industry where books are valued, these are all markers of upper middle class status, reflecting education, purchasing power, and social privilege.”<http://www.xojane.com/issues/is-the-shelfie-just-intellectual-wankery>
Now the publication ‘xoJane’, as far as I can tell, is what would happen if Nathan Barley edited Jezebel. So I’m sure the writer of that piece is well aware of what they’re doing – ie, churning out deliberately controversial, easily contradicted, falsely absolutist, neat shiny parcels of clickbait bullshit in which, as the esteemed James Ivens remarked, the tone manages to be both superior and anti-intellectual at the same time. I’m sure they don’t actually believe what they write.
Not that it matters. What S E Smith has written in that piece reflects and reinforces a damaging discourse whereby education, intellectual capacity, wit, thought, learning or finer feelings are held to be the preserve of the better-off, while what used to be called the working class are held to be mired in mental ignorance and incapacity. I’m aware of differing ideas and definitions of class in the US and UK, but this idea – certainly not new, in fact yet another neo-Victorian reanimation of old spectres – is cropping up everywhere, in left and right-wing perspectives, like a particularly unedifying game of Whack-a-Mole. At its most egregious and asinine, it fuels Boris Johnson’s pronouncement <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25135225> in which the poor are held accountable for their own misfortune because they aren’t clever enough to be rich.
As actual representatives of the non-elite have vanished from politics, media and the arts, so representations of the non-elite have grown increasingly lurid and grotesque, with observers nevertheless meant to be fawningly grateful for whatever unlikely examples we manage to get. This is why Caitlin Moran’s recent caprice Raised By Wolves could be hailed as ‘a genuine first’<http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/dec/24/raised-wolves-tv-review-caitlin-moran> – as though ‘council-estate intellectuals’ were a novelty previously wholly unheard-of. (Oh, Rab C Nesbitt – not to mention Working Mens’ Institutes and Miners’ Libraries and Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams – we hardly knew you!) Like Russell Brand’sNewsnight intervention<http://rhianejones.com/2013/10/31/on-russell-brand-class-intersectionality/>, Raised By Wolves is a perfectly acceptable and obvious offering that looks more revolutionary than it is because everything surrounding it is so dull and disingenuous and uninspired.
To be boringly political about things: what has taken place over the past decade or so – in the vanishing of the tradition of working-class autodidacticism; in the enforced closure of libraries and adult education classes; in the narrowing of access to the arts, media, politics and journalism to those able to afford internships; in the privatisation and pricing-up of higher education; in the continued neglect of areas economically devastated in the 1980s and the ignoring or denial of the after-effects of this – is the rolling back of social, cultural and political gains made by the post-war working class. This development has been given the dodgy and diverting gloss that we are somehow a post-class society, that working-class status in particular no longer holds currency – and then, with the continued existence of socio-economic division becoming impossible to deny, the idea that there is still no actual working class but only ‘the poor’, a lumpen rump distinguished by their supposed lack of fitness for anything better or greater than their current lot.
Similarly, that xoJane article’s fundamental crime is to crassly conflate ‘education’ – which to me has always indicated general learning, consciousness and enlightenment – with the institutional process of ‘getting an education’. And while tuition fees, loans, and the rising cost of living may be making the latter an increasingly distant prospect for ‘the poor’, it does not automatically follow that the former is also beyond their intellectual reach. (And if students become defined as all middle-class, of course, then their concerns – whether over heavy-handed policing of demos, or the private outsourcing of university facilities, or the closing of ‘non-economically viable’ Humanities departments – can be dismissed as elitist and bourgeois issues, self-indulgent and out of touch with the real world, with the material concerns of ‘ordinary people’. And so can the very idea of pursuing education for its own, horizon-expanding but non-economic sake, as opposed to for the sake of ‘adding value’ to yourself as a future economic unit.)
My more personal response to the xoJane article, in particular the line: ‘… working in an industry where books are valued [is a marker] of upper middle class status’, was to question when the writer last stepped inside a bookshop. If their idea of the model for book retail is Amazon-centric, then I guess I can understand their perception of an industry split between literate cash-frittering shelfie-taking consumers sitting detached behind an ordering screen, and warehouse-bound overworked drones<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor> whose preoccupation – presumably – is with shifting the merchandise rather than entertaining any finer feelings towards it. This bizarre kind of Morlock/Eloi conception of society isn’t far from the absolutist idea which paints the modern working class as ignorant and education-hostile ‘chavs’, an underclass unable to be conceptualised as readers or thinkers, whose lot of worsening deprivation can therefore be presented as entirely expected and logical for ones so wretched and with so little capacity for improvement.
Outside Amazon’s fastness – and very probably inside it – things are rather more shades of grey. I have spent most of the past decade working either part-time or full-time in high-street book retail, and in this environment I have never felt my background and my no-man’s-land class identity to be inexplicable or unique to me. I have worked with other similar products of post-industrial small towns and comprehensive schools which nonetheless granted us a good enough education to get us into higher education. (From which point, our paths led us to London and into precarious just-about-bill-paying jobs through which we currently fund our artistic, creative, academic, political and other pursuits – because, in the absence of independent wealth or access to internships, that’s what you do. The same is true, in my experience, of a whole host of low-paid workers – but that’s a whole other, if not unrelated, rant.)
Such escapist, often class-transcending trajectories are almost always fuelled, in part or in whole, by a love of learning, words and language, and by books and the possible worlds contained in them. To disingenuously reduce centuries of self-improvement, aspiration, and just basic comfort, entertainment and enjoyment, to the narrow and solipsistic horizons of the studied and curated ‘shelfie’ is smug and unhelpful enough. To further suggest that the ability to access and appreciate books is automatically beyond the intellectual grasp of an entire socioeconomic sector, and to do this in a way that contributes to pernicious and damaging ideas of class on both sides of the Atlantic? Let me stress, with the full weight of my book-learnt and comprehensive-schooled vocabulary, how much I fucking hate that shit.
--
Dr David Hardman
School of Psychology
Faculty of Life Sciences
London Metropolitan University
166-220 Holloway Road
London, N7 8DB
Phone: 020 7133 2554
Companies Act 2006 : http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/companyinfo
Edinburgh Napier University offers industry informed courses which combine the optimum balance of theory and practice to equip graduates for success in today's competitive global job market. 92.3% of our graduates are in work or further study within six months of leaving. With over 17,000 students from over 110 countries, we are an international University and are also proud to be the largest UK provider of higher education in Hong Kong.
This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects.
Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373
|
