Jason Stanley has an interesting and thoughtful post contrasting his father’s generation of academics with his own (which is, I think, roughly mine). His observation is that his father and his father’s colleagues exhibited much more rootedness in their institution and the communities surrounding them than he feels our generation does, and he also thinks that his father’s generation were more detached from or at odds with the mainstream culture. Peter Levine (who grew up with Jason, apparently, what a small world this is, especially given that they are 2 of the handful of people I ever link to) has an equally thoughtful follow up post, claiming that these changes are rooted in changes in the society as a whole, and wisely warning against the status competition which they both think is unhealthily present in academic life. I’m still not sure what I make of Jason’s original claim; the first post made me realise that most of what I know about Jason’s father’s generation of American academics is drawn from early Alison Lurie and Philip Roth novels, consumed before I moved to the States, and anyway not necessarily reliable sociology. But I suspect the contrast is overdrawn, and that academics have always been more in tune with the mainstream culture than they would like to think they are.
Update: on the grounds that you can discuss it over at Peter’s or Leiter’s blogs and that any further comments could only spoil the aesthetic delight below, I’ve closed comments.
{ 2 comments }
fifi 05.01.06 at 6:00 pm
There seems to be a lot more anomie around these days. I guess we’re done with irony?
Cryptic Ned 05.01.06 at 6:33 pm
Don’t worry, next will come bonhomie.
Comments on this entry are closed.