Dies the Swan
Oct 3, 2006
This was supposed to be the year I gorged myself on literary theory, grew fat on subjectivity, exploded under the intensity of my thought and the splattered everyone around me with ideas that would change their worlds.
Yes. This was the year I would put finishing touches on The Plan. The one that would Change The World. A major part of this plan was my application to grad studies. I had vague ideas of what I wanted to study; they involved ethereal words like diaspora, identity, and youth. Their very vagueness ensured their ethereality. I was able to spin intricate webs with those thin connections, was able to see potential in everything.
Now here I am. A month on, I use the phrase “brave new world” and think not of swans (or even zips) but of cracks.
When I was in Life Sci and fervently wishing I wasn’t, I was acutely sensitive of the ways in which intelligence in the Sciences (at least at the undergraduate level) is constructed. It involves the ability to unfailingly identify the phalanxes of the fingers, string together molecules into recognisable compounds, tweak formulas to fit the hypotheses parading as truth. I thought nostalgically of Physics and Calculus, my mainstays of logic, now put behind me as I progressed to the increasingly cut-and-dry material of upper year pre-medicine. I made it point to take a math course every year, but neither Statistics nor Epidemiology measured up to Calculus’ romanticism, its unfailing belief in the unknowable: the infinitesimally minute and the infinitely large. It was poetry in numbers, the way we moved in small steps from the mundanely numerable to quantities incalculable. It was theory parading as practise and I rejoiced in it, the way we spoke so casually of things we could never really, never properly describe.
The Statistics I took in second year, though taught by a man whose love for the course was genuine and overwhelming, was so obviously tailored for Life Science students that it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Epidemiology, a year later, when it deigned to provide social relevance was somewhat but not much better.
And you see, this is it; this is why I have sat here for over an hour today, trying to explain why I am increasingly frustrated in my efforts to define what it is I want to study in graduate school: I cannot speak of Literature, and not speak of Mathematics, just as I could not, a year ago, study Locke and not think of Linnaeus. Interdisciplinarity, touted now in the Social Sciences as the new wave, is my way of life. Yet right now it is vogue enough that a historian may also be a linguist. And how can I settle for that? I want to get high on words and on numbers, in print and on the Internet. How can we define any one thing until we have known all others? And yet the halls fill every year with Life Scis content to become doctors who have never dabbled in the social sciences. And the English department swells with students who have never considered that atoms are perhaps the world’s best metaphor for everything.
So here I am. Free to be English. Free to become the professor I wanted to be, and I am floundering.
A friend, a Philosopher major, English minor, and lawyer hopeful, once remarked, “People say English is subjective. But it’s not. There are rules, you know.”
I felt she was trying to defend English to me and was silent, because I vehemently disagreed.
English is subjective. I know this, after having hijacked over three years’ worth of class discussions, as fact. Anything, once articulated, is legitimated. All that remains is to pass off your argument with enough bravado that everyone else is persuaded.
But I need the literalness of Anatomy to rail against, the logic of Physics to ground me, the painstaking heartlessness of Organic Chemistry to restrict me. I need these things because they define my boundaries and there can be no such thing as interdisciplinarity unless there are disciplines.
And I am and can be nothing if not interdisciplinary.
Which is really just another word for confused.
But also perpetually awestruck.
Update:
I was re-reading this post and thought: What a horrible, horrible, oh utterly horrible opening paragraph.
Oh well, you live and you learn. My apologies for making you endure that horror of a metaphor.
7 Responses to “Dies the Swan”
1 Maliha Oct 4, 2006
Salaamat,
I can really relate. I remember just how anticlimatic graduation from under grad was. It was like this is it? and all those things I thought i would do were that much further away.
i have dabbled in one masters; and looking into another. And I am still stuck at that same point…of having too many interests and not finding a way to reconcile all of them *and* channel them into one (several?) areas.
Don’t mean to depress you more…but perhaps the whole notion of what being educated means needs to be revised. Kheir, wish you all the best and keep us posted on which direction you choose to go.
May your path be filled with beauty and peace (amin).
2 fathima Oct 4, 2006
“Confused” is too strong a word. I hadn’t meant for this post to be depressing, so much as contemplative. Because I’m not so much unsure what I want to do as unwilling to limit myself to the choices given. I intend to make a career out of working outside the boundaries, and grad school applications wouldn’t be the first place I’ve done that.
So yay diversity. :)
3 Ali Eteraz Oct 6, 2006
This is tre interesting. I really gotta run & dont have much time to comment these days but I have to say something.
I love the part about passing something off with bravado. I concur with you. My degree was in Philosophy and I quickly found — via Nietzsche I suppose — that in the end, it wasn’t the cogency of any particular syllogism that mattered. Rather, people were persuaded, even philosophers, by the ‘gentle nudges’ of style. That’s what N. called it: style. I call it rhetoric (maybe because I am still a bit unwilling to accept that). So, I know where you’re coming from.
The difficulty I think you have, is that so far you’ve used this power — this recognition that its not what you say but how you say it, to “hijack” discussions, and in addition, I assume, to prop up your ego whenever it faltered, to keep yourself safe from criticism by others, and other such ventures. Maybe you haven’t, but it was what I certainly did.
I think you are on the right track here:
So if language is instrumental in recognising and realising change, and if language is defined by personal experiences and personal biases, then I need to be able to speak in multiple languages. And I don’t mean that I need to be multilingual, but that my knowledge and my empathy need to be multifaceted.
Now you need conviction.
All that is bad in this comment has come from me; same goes for what’s good.
Goodbye & Goodluck.
4 basit Oct 6, 2006
you might be interested in an article by maria lugones…can’t remember the exact title, but i think the word “world-travelling” was in there. (multi-lingual/ world-traveller)
and…though reading dewey is “like swimming through porridge”, he might be relevant? on subjectivities.
there, that’s my name-dropping for the day.
5 fathima Oct 10, 2006
Ali: I think I can safely that I turned to English with a heightened sense of security, a self-confidence that spilled into self-blindness sometimes. And by “hijack” I mean that I was often dissatisfied with class discussions, because in previous years, but particularly last year, I was obsessed with “disconnects” and isolations and I turned to literature to bridge those isolations. It was Queen’s. It became my crusade to be everything minor in texts, to hyperbolise and complicate.
At least, that’s what I think in retrospect. I’m probably romanticising myself. Ick.
basit: thanks, b. I will definitely check it out. And I was reading Spivak and that was very slow reading, but illuminating when it wasn’t frustrating. So maybe I’m prepared for Dewey.
Also, did you know Langston Hughes wrote essays? A friend recommended “The Negro Artist and The Racial Mountain.”
And names are good. Drop them all you like.
6 bdr Oct 28, 2006
“…measured up to Calculus’ romanticism, its unfailing belief in the unknowable: the infinitesimally minute and the infinitely large. It was poetry in numbers, the way we moved in small steps from the mundanely numerable to quantities incalculable. It was theory parading as practise and I rejoiced in it, the way we spoke so casually of things we could never really, never properly describe.”
that was great description.
7 fathima Dec 3, 2006
thanks bdr! (god, this was so long ago. i can’t even get back to people on my own website. how indescribably sad.)