commentary on ‘affable personas’
If you’ve been reading the Archive you may be in need of some commentary on A’s great new Lego-Intellectual, the CultStud Affable Persona™. If you were there, you will get the joke and you may even understand the balloons. If not, read on.
We’ve been at CultureFix, the annual Cultural Studies Association of Australasia conference this week, mostly an excuse to use up my postgrad conference junket fund and deliver a paper, see some people in Sydney etc. The first day of the conference was called PreFix (a play on CultureFix) — it was billed as a professional development day for postgrads and ‘early careeer researchers’. Now, my thesis supervisor co-organised and chaired it, which meant that I felt a compunction to go, aside from the chance for anthropological research relevant to the recent cult stud blog wars. And indeed, if I want to have a career as an academic, I should definitely know certain things: like the fact that for employment and grant applications, journals in which one might publish each have a score, and the more obscure or small the journal, the less scores you will pick up.
Anyhow, to the point: the Affable Persona. At PreFix Mark McClelland (whose writing I am rather fond of) gave a spiel about getting postdoctoral fellowships, advising us that you have to play the game, that we should “see and be seen” at conferences, seminars, departmental gatherings et cetera, developing an “affable persona” with which to deliver papers, network, befriend possible mentors, research grant selectors, et cetera. One began to worry about Mark during the course of his talk. He also suggested that any distractions from research — like relationships — were not to be tolerated.
I get the sense that most of Mark’s comments were delivered deadpan (ie, he actually does have a partner, I found out later), but amongst that crowd the irony seemed to go largely unnoticed. Beautifully catered tea and lunch breaks presented perfect opportunities for those present to adjust and polish their own AP’s in the presence of other postgrads and unthreatening ECR’s. I am afraid mine still needs quite a bit of work. Having had four hours sleep, I mostly grunted and snorted my way through cold meats and canapes, or bitched with Ben and other bloggers about the fact that someone suggested “working with industry” — for example, mining companies or biotech (Rio Tinto anyone?) — as a way of picking up more funding and making cult stud more ‘relevant’ to practical concerns.
Catherine Lumby also gave a spiel on how to become a media slut, which included a) simplifying one’s ‘line’ down to a zero-sum point that even dumb journalists can understand; b) being able to write an op-ed piece in an hour; c) hanging out with lots of journalists; d) instead of publishing theoretical books, write trade publications with titles like “Why TV Is Good For Kids”. Theory is dead, Catherine said, long live populism.
It’s going to take me about three weeks to unpack reviews of the rest of the conference. But here’s a teaser post title, especially for Jon at Posthegemony: “A spectre is haunting Cultural Studies: the spectre of Gramsci.” Or I could put it in lyric form, to the tune of “Let’s get retarded” by the Black Eyed Peas:
Let’s get hegemonic in here
Let’s get hegemonic in here
Let’s get hegemonic in here
Let’s get hegemonic in here
[Remember to feel that beat! Sway to the rhythm! Act like you’re having a grand old time! Repeat until choking.]
I appreciate the teaser. :)
And I feel for you regarding your conference experience.
Though I should say I went to the CSAA conference in Tasmania a couple of years ago and quite enjoyed it. (Mostly, though, for the experience gambling with my advisor in the casino.)
Comment by Jon — November 29, 2005 @ 6:42 am
nice to meet you and chat while you were around.
i had the feeling that Mark’s talk was post-ironic in a sickening this-is-your-future sort of way. any ironic resonance was probably just a mid-canter self-reflection about who he was talking to. some of us are actually sickened at the prospect of living that sort of life, no matter how bloody good we are at doing it.
the lack of discussion about non-academic careers for post-phd or post-postgrad was more disturbing for me than any discussion about linkage grants with mining companies.
Comment by Glen — November 29, 2005 @ 7:35 am
There were definitely some very enjoyable moments at the conference, like any conference, and some great speakers. Cary Nelson and Paula Treichler were there also, and actually Cary Nelson saved the day at PreFix by ranting at length about the terrible working conditions of academia, and also by arguing that it is possible to do your own thing, not become a networking machine, and work in universities.
Glen — “some of us are actually sickened at the prospect of living that sort of life, no matter how bloody good we are at doing it.”
Yes, although it’s the ones who aren’t any good at doing it that I worry about.
I was alarmed that no-one really talked about actual teaching, lecturing, supervising students, and so on.
Comment by goingsomewhere — November 29, 2005 @ 10:12 am
Hi Az, I thought you were very affable in the lunch break!While Mark was definitely dead-pan, he wasn’t really joking about the relationships: no partner for him just two very supportive cats! I agree there was a distinct lack of alternative models on display at pre-fix. Then again I’m sure given that this was the first ever event like this the organisers will be keen for feedback to make it more diverse next year. Mark is my colleague but I certainly can’t match his pace or discipline, and it scares me to think that the all of his advice would be taken.
Lack of discussion about teaching was evident throughout the rest of the conference too. The same complaint is made each year, and nothing seems to happen…
Comment by MC — November 30, 2005 @ 4:51 am
Hello, Az and all other readers.
Yes, I certainly agree that ‘Prefix’ was a mixed bag. Incredibly informative, a terrific session from Cary and Paula - and always gr8 to chinwag with postgrads from around Aus.
However, the whole Nelson/ARC debacle had flared up shortly b4 the conference. And Nelson’s vampire-like shadow loomed over the conference, giving a definite air that cultural studies folk in Aus - postgrads and ‘early career researchers’ - are having, and will continue to have a Tough Time. A very Tough Time.
Hence, Lumby’s typically provocative - and typically populist - speech about academics engaging with the media. And Mark’s cynicism (I appreciated his speech, though, and his commitment to his research). And the increasing number of hoops we’ll all have to jump over to get a foot in the academic door.
Sydney Uni academic and feminist Bronwyn Winter once described the Howard regime (sic) as ‘the most right wing government this country has ever had’. That’s true - indeed, it’s an understatement. And, in terms of the university, it’s humanities researchers who are bearing the brunt of this.
Comment by Jay Thompson — December 1, 2005 @ 2:31 am
Well, the ARC debacle is obviously going to sort out the sheep from the goats. More on the blog proper.
Comment by goingsomewhere — December 1, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
Jay, I am not sure if the very recent Nelson/ARC event is a good enough reason to explain the disciplinisation of Cultural Studies. I mean that in Foucault’s sense of discipline.
I certainly do not want to cast a shadow over the good work of PreFix. It was good to hear about the current state of affairs. I think most people would agree with that.
Yet, we are being inserted into a process that has been happening for a long while. Certainly there was last year’s round of ARC grants. When will it be enough?
The Negri Affair is another good recent example of the state of Cultural Studies. This time played out in the mass-media. I was quite shocked at the time at the lack of voice from senior Cultural Studies academics. To read even about the problem of public voice and articulating a coherent counter-argument in these times, let alone speaking in public while articulating a counter-argument, would’ve have been good enough to spark discussion.
I wonder if Profs want postgrads to agitate? If they think it is appropriate?
Comment by Glen — December 2, 2005 @ 11:09 am