products

My father recently confessed that he is bearded because he is too lazy to shave. One could argue that there are no limits to where he applies that rationale. The evidence is legion and probably not worth sharing without making me seem petty -- perhaps I am past that point already. The facts remain: he sports a beard and I rarely go more than a day without scraping the stubble from my chin, jaw, throat and cheeks. I like how it feels after a good shave. But it is a somewhat tedious routine. Not only is it less intellectually generative than a shower, the penalty for inattentiveness can be measured in blood.

Sue brought home a small bottle of shaving oil the other day from a shopping spree. Now I was aware of shaving oil -- I think I read about it years ago in an Esquire article about shaving. The stuff from Walgreen's worked okay. The new stuff though smells like I'm perched above a bowl of potpourri. And the shave isn't bad either.

Interestingly, I have to pay more attention to the work. Unlike foam or soap, there is no track left behind after the razor has passed through shaving oil. I suppose this suggests that bad shaves I've done to myself in the past may have occurred because I was scraping away the suds rather than concentrating on the stubble. I am reminded that foam, oil or suds are there not to show which areas have been cleared. Instead, the purpose is to help the blade slide across (not into) the skin so that the tiny forest can be cleared away. Now that those hair stumps have turned appreciably lighter, it makes the morning ritual (ablation or ablution) more of a challenge. For the next few weeks, that exertion will be accompanied by the smell of eucalyptus and clove oil. No nicks so far.

to write

Many hours have been spent this summer reading the raw writings of others. In many ways, it's a great resource toclarify what is good and bad about writing. Within a review of the literature by a someone else's doc student I recognize the practice of walking through a list of published works. What strikes me about the lack of sophistication was the overemphasis upon names without focusing upon ideas. In addition, the doc student was very reliant upon the direct quotes of others. I must confess that I have not read this manuscript completely. It is such a chore. I suspect that lack of pleasure for me by the reader equates with the sense of this being a writing task that must be completed.

Writers are often urged to attend to voice and audience. It becomes clear what these recommendations mean when the writer fails to keep these adages in mind. Now I feel as if I can spot the problem and turn it into a concrete recommendation for novice writers. If the emphasis of the writing is upon who said something, then the writing is probably not academic. Instead, it is an homage to others -- and neglects the opportunity to provide fresh insights. Ideas should come first; the sources are acknowledged as an aside. The narrator is telling the story of ideas: which begat what, where one contradicts another, how one might find similarities where no one else had done so before. But if each ¶ break signals the transition to another article or author, then the problem (and the reader) will suffer.

The purpose of a literature review is not to lead the reader from one article to the next. I can accomplish that by flipping through journals. What I am interested in reading is a thoughtful discussion about ideas. Further, my mind drifts rather easily (even now I'm watching the Red Sox beat the Yankees within another browser window). Explain the ideas and their significance. Show how your thinking is reflected within other sources. But don't allow the other writers to take center stage while you peak out from the curtains. Instead, the writer must ALWAYS be on stage in order to explain the storyline. Bringing in others from the wings lends interest to the tale. And yet as the writer, you should also usher others off of the stage as soon as you've extracted their ideas for your own use. In fact, it's not always necessary to know the exact source of ideas. At the end of it all, the synthesis of ideas (and not the parade of personalities) is the key to an effective literature review.

connections

I was at a meeting including people from several different universities. In trying to distribute copies of curriculum materials (hundreds of pages in length), it became apparent that burning CDs for a dozen people was a losing battle. A large part of the struggle was that the materials were in progress and constantly being updated. Several folks had flash drives. And at one point, one guy held his laptop to his brain to indicate the need to transfer all of his thoughts to his laptop.

While there is very little likelihood I will ever get a tattoo, I did wonder what it would be like to have a USB port inked into my wrist or just behind my ear. I did not spend much time looking online, but the only example I found was this image. But it does not give the sense of a physical connection. I was imagining what looked like a port … and hot chicks would ask if they could download my thoughts onto their drive. Clearly my mind has been addled by two full days of curriculum meetings.

mentoring future faculty

Helping others learn to take my place (figuratively speaking) seems to be a central component of working with doctoral students. It takes a careful hand and well timed advice to do this well. There is no instruction booklet so I have to learn through trial-and-error. And I feel I am getting better with each new advisee. Here is an example.

I just finished teaching a six-week Methods of Teaching summer course. I taught one of three sections and I had a blend of people who will student teach in math, science, history or English starting in August. They get the weekend off and then take more classes for the second half of the summer. The students are reconfigured on Wednesdays to attend their Subject Area Methods course. However, these classes only meet for five weeks.

The instructor for science methods, a doctoral advisee of mine, sought my input about the program director's concern:

John,We just got an email about class time for the second summer session (9-3 or 9-4:15). Mike seems to be concerned about having 36 "contact" hours. So I began trying to think what I did for lunch last year. SO, what did you do for lunch this year?

Recognizing this as a teachable moment, I offered the kind of advice that might not have occurred to me when I first entered the profession:

Usually I made myself a sandwich and carrots. And I brought iced coffee. One week I brought a bowl of fresh fruit.

to be of use

Let me begin by acknowledging then inherent dangers when a blog entry comments upon a poem. But that is what I am about to do. This is a love poem that I would hope to share with my industrious friends. It reminds me that love and delight can (or should) be part-and-parcel of work. However, this isn't the old-fashioned Protestant work ethic. It's something perhaps less spiritual and more aesthetically pleasing.

Below I excerpt the beginning, and later the end, of Marge Piercy's poem "To Be of Use"…

The people I love the best
jump into work head first
without dallying in the shallows
and swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element,
the black sleek heads of seals
bouncing like half submerged balls.

One thing about the preceding passage is the sense that I could rapidly be left behind. Others have made the leap and are moving forward. It seems what they are doing is natural and purposeful. If I hesitate, the moment will be lost.

But the thing worth doing well done
has a shape that satisfies, clean and evident.
Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.

This took a few readings to appreciate. I recall seeing a vessel in a museum that was shielded by glass from my curious fingers. It seemed odd that this very practical container had no purpose except as something on display. I wondered if the object was embarrassed by the attention it received and ashamed that it was prohibited from the purpose for which it was designed. And I imagined the exhiliration it might feel if was allowed to once again be put to use.

serial loves

Complete devotion is so uncommon that I wonder whether it is humanly impossible. For example, it isn’t all that odd to learn of European men who retain mistresses. Other cultures have their own variations: harems, polygamist communities, and so on. Having one’s desires directed into multiple repositories is not restricted to sexual drives. It seems that even those who engage in monogamy in their personal lives juxtapose those arrangements with multiple love interests in their work lives.

By all criteria, someone with whom I am reasonably well-acquainted person is unwaveringly and unquestionably devoted to a life partner. Does this evince a counter-example of humans having polygamist tendencies? No. In fact, the level of marital devotion seems in direct contrast to his propensity to pursue multiple heady projects. Here is reinforcement of my point. On balance, where devotion is the rule within one realm it is within another realm that faithlessness is the default action. Further, such tendencies seem to dominate within our working social circle. Of one mind at home, of too many hearts in the field.

None of this is news, especially with the confession of being a scholar activitist of polygamist proportions. Such tendencies are, I would argue, representative of a cosmic balance. In other settings, where an individual’s sexual attentions are widely dispersed he or she can only focus upon one career option. Those with the wandering eyes and genitalia are also the people who see nothing wrong with keeping in the same job forever. The only thing needed to strengthen this point is to coin a new term. Polygamy or polyandry are too biological as is polygynandry (what it lacks in pronouncability it compensates for in its imagery). Polyamory? Polyfidelitous? Regardless, we must agree it is not polymer.