Submitted by Jim Aune on July 1, 2009 - 12:59pm
Michele Lamont (who helped create the field of cultural sociology in the US, and should be better known by people doing rhetoric and cultural studies) is guest-blogging over at Crooked Timber this month. Today she posted a chapter on her relationship with Pierre Bourdieu, forthcoming in a book on his work. Two things: 1) accounting for her later divergence from Bourdieu: "Because of my own life experience, I remain persuaded that pleasure, curiosity, and a need for community and recognition are powerful engines for human action, certainly as powerful as the quest for power and the maximization of one's position in fields of power that are privileged by Bourdieu." (I sometimes hesitate to encourage graduate students to Bourdieu, since he encourages the sort of corrosive cynicism they get enough of every day.) 2) She points out that after considerable initial enthusiasm on both sides of the relationship, she moved on to another advisor because Bourdieu did not know how to mentor young women. (She hastens to point out in a footnote that there was no issue of sexual harassment, just "awkwardness," and that he was more comfortable with "brilliant young men").
I have usually thought that mentoring should occur naturally, and have been somewhat skeptical about the new procedure in many departments of officially "assigning" mentors. I had the experience in graduate school of having an excellent mentor in my dissertation advisor, but we had a major falling out around 1982, and I then drifted rudderless until about 1994, when I finally managed to start publishing. I don't regret the years inbetween, mainly because I learned how to teach, and it was important to me to learn how to fail appropriately. (I often wonder about the long-term careers of people I know who were "stars" in graduate school and then went off to top PHD programs and then got tenure effortlessly. Fucking up concentrates the mind wonderfully.) I'm also skeptical about the claim that younger women scholars or scholars from some sort of disadvantaged background need to have mentors from the same social grouping, but I'm well enough aware of the sorts of tensions (usually more sexual in nature) that Michele Lamont talks about. I've never thought it's good for univerities (and their lawyers) to be in the position of being the "love police," but this sort of thing can and does get regularly out of hand. (And I don't think that claptrap about the "transference" helps. If there's anywhere that the id should go away and the Ego take its place is in a mentoring relationship.) I confess that I seem to mentor women more easily than men, partially because I don't know how to talk sports (and my oft-mentioned "female" brain), but I'm not sure that relative ease is the point. Anyone else thinking of these issues these days?
I wonder if Yogita's comment about intellectual insecurity in female scholars holds more water than is comfortable. And forgive me if this isn't as linear as usual - I've got a lot of thoughts floating about at the moment.
For those of us in rhetoric, we are looking at a long, long history of a male dominated field. K.K. Campbell tells a story of being told early on in her career that it is useless to study female speakers because there has never been a good one.
Aristotle had this crazy idea about a universal audience, but his definition of "universal" differed RADICALLY from how we see it today. Unfortunately, it took literally thousands of years to get where we are. The few conferences I have been to I have always been struck by demographics. In the grad student groups women are fairly well-represented. And there are plenty of young women professors - but then there is this huge gap. The grayer the hair the fewer women there are to be found. In summation: it hasn't been that long since this field was kind of a boys only club. It doesn't seem too far fetched to think that women have trouble being mentors because this whole "lack of acceptance at all" thing is not our distant past yet.
As a woman who has been told that I would be more successful if I would sit down and shut up (professors and bosses don't like women with opinions, they like women who look nice and listen well - no joke, this was the academic advice I received the first time I struggled in a class in college. Oh - and put on a skirt and some make-up, for pity's sake) I can see how a certain insecurity is not only possible, but a pretty reasonable response to the field. And if one is somewhat insecure it would make sense to get a little upset if a younger person had different ideas or wanted to do things differently. As much as we have tried to ignore it there is a certain amount of agonism (yes, Jim, as Tannen defined agonism - don't be a hater. Just because she's a sexist, as you adamantly explained to me once, doesn't mean she didn't supply an interesting idea here and there) that gets to all of us at some point. Perhaps it is somewhat worse depending on who and where and what age you are?
I'm not really sure about all of this - but it is something I've thought about quite a bit in the last few years. If anybody has some straightforward answers please drop by - I'll make dinner for you!
I am a woman who has spent almost all of her life since the age of 18 in the academy in India and the US of A. In these years, I have found three bright and kind male mentors without whom I would have given up. There have been at least two bright and mean women educators because of whom I almost gave up. I would also like to add that of these three male mentors, I was attracted to one and he managed that very well, there was some stuff with one which we both managed well but the mentorship didn't work, one was clearly not "attracted" to me nor was I to him. But I find my prejudice (which, I hope, will gradually fade away as I continue to meet supportive women of which there are a FEW) about women mentors to have serious consequences for feminist politics.
Therefore, my absolutely stupid but serious question is: Why are "successful and bright" women terrible mentors unless you want to completely replicate them/ their method/ their ideas? The answer could well be: You're just crazy! However, if you care for my even crazier answer it is that I've found them to be intellectually insecure.
Both Elizabeth and Yogita identify patterns of behavior I've noted many times in the roughly 30 years I've been a professor. Older academic men frequently behave badly with younger academic women/graduate students--some in overtly sexual ways, some with the "awkwardness" described by Michele Lamont, some (perhaps the worst) with a sort of ambiguous flirtation that can easily be dismissed as "just joking--what's YOUR problem?" But the other side is true as well: women dissertation advisors who forbid their advisees to get pregnant, seemingly inexplicable ego conflicts (men are usually a bit more transparent with their egos, much as with their sex drive), and, occasionally, a concern for ideological purity. The personal may be the political, but an explicitly stated feminist ideology does not at times translate into concern for women as individual persons. (I could describe the interview in which the two other women on the committee sniped at the candidate's attire after she left the room, and I sat in shocked and prudent silence). The only conclusion is that we're always dealing with inherently flawed humanity, and the best we can do is try to be self-monitoring and transparent as we can be in these relationships. Rather than gender per se, I think the best thing to know between an advisee and a student is both individuals' Meyers-Briggs type. I relate spontaneously better to people who are NF's--intuitive feelers, for example, and I know that people who are P(erceivers) need the kind of regimentation that J(udger)'s often do not. Most academics are NT's (which is per the theory why under stress their feelings go crazy). Any other thoughts out there?
...lets do. i'll take your half and you take mine. yippie. living and learning, i guess.