Academic Writing: Davis-Undiano essay
I came across an older, very well-written essay by Robert Con Davis-Undiano who teaches at Univ. of Oklahoma commenting on the “large-scale return to the essay” in academia. It synthesizes very well the history of this ancient (quite literally) debate between writing that aims to “make concrete change” and writing that challenges assumptions of what we know by being basically… difficult to read. The contemporary bookends for this debate, Michael Berube and Judith Butler, come to mind. He covers the debate exceptionally well, refusing to abide by the good writing versus bad writing argument and ends by defending the renewed emphasis on readability and accessibility while fundamentally defending the value of any academic to write to a specific audience with specific language.
One of the surprising revelations was his reminder of Adorno’s reluctance, if not outright dismissal, that scholars should write for popular audience. I wonder how someone like Said would’ve read Adorno.
One of the reasons for the continuation of the debate, primarily within academia as I see it, is that the “general public” (and this is of course a sketchy category to begin with) is imagined to “not care” about academic knowledge. Davis-Undiano responds: “There is a need for a heightened recognition of academic achievements, better public relations on behalf of the academy, and many professors—in addition to other professionals in the culture—will continue to step forward successfully as public intellectuals.”
Another great observation is that “there is more to becoming a public intellectual than clear writing. As things stand, many of the venues for commercial publishing would be questionable choices for tenure consideration, and career activities unconnected to tenure would pose a significant job risk. Mark Bauerlein notes, too, that literature professors were not actually trained to write essays about social issues and big-picture concerns. If literature professors and humanists were going to write literate and influential “essays,” mediate what Theodore Ziolkowski calls “the public discussion of cultural and ethical issues,” and act as cultural lights and leaders, graduate education would have to change.”
I couldn’t agree more. With the insistence of universities to think about “new media” in teaching and writing, graduate education must adjust to teach not only how to read in today’s technologically-diverse culture, but how to read in such an environment.
Reference