Ah academia...

...nothing like a socially awkward, self-congratulatory conference to make me wonder all over again what the hell I've gotten myself into. Why are academics so weird???

This conference has managed to hit all of my conference pet peeves, I think. À savoir:

- Name dropping. Oh, the name dropping. Postcolonial studies lends itself particularly well to this phenomenon, we've had to deal with Spivak, Butler, Bhabha, Glissant, Naipaul, Saïd (these people are like Madonna in this field, so famous that they only need one name). Particularly Saïd. But then we also can't forget Derek Walcott, Paul Gilroy, CLR James. Google them if you want. Or don't bother. I wouldn't.

- Jargon. Again, postcolonial studies excels at this. We spent HOURS discussing the difference between "postcolonialism" and "postcoloniality." And the thing is, I'll accord that the two words are different. And everyone agrees. So let's move on already.

- Gossiping. As if anyone really cares in academia, other than to make themselves feel better about their own lives. cf the conference participant who tried to pump me for info on a superstar prof in my dept, what his wife is like, etc.

- Running over time. Let's be honest: there are only two kinds of papers in academia. The 20-minute version and the 50-minute version. Really. There's nothing else. If you're on a panel, EVERYONE knows you're supposed to talk for 20 minutes max. No, this does not mean that your paper is special and deserves 30 minutes. It means you need to do the work to cut down your argument as necessary to fit within the time frame, just like everyone else has done. The rest of us want our break to have a coffee, not to keep sitting here listening to you ramble because you didn't organize your thoughts enough in advance. For some reason this conference seems to be full of these people. I can probably count on one hand the number of people who have respected the time limit. bah.

- That guy. You know, the one who asks a TEN-MINUTE question when the session is already running overtime. And the question has no point, is full of theoretical jargon and name dropping, and missed some detail in the presentation. You know it did, it always does.

- The other guy, the one who thinks he's being all cutting-edge in his paper, when he's actually talking about something no one cares about outside this closed room of academics. cf the guy who was so proud of himself yesterday for saying that the phrase "postcolonial studies" has almost become a curse word in some circles. Ooooooh you're just a bad-ass, saying such a dirty thing. Postcolonial studies. That's as bad as insulting someone's mother! Really now, go to the drug dealer down the street (not that I've seen any in this neighborhood, which is actually rather posh, don't worry!) and say "postcolonial studies." If that doesn't get you a punch in the face, I don't know what will. I mean, really now, anyone here found this guy's lost sense of perspective???

- The non-committal historian who is perfectly happy to analyze the past but refuses any application to today. cf the keynote, who went on about "provincializing Europe." Then "that guy" asked the ten-minute question, which concluded by asking how to "provincialize Europe." The historian looked at us blankly, and with absolutely no sense of the ridiculousness of what he was saying, was like, "oh, I don't know, I'm a historian, I don't look at the present, I just say things about the past." Without even thinking about it, he just totally dismissed the relevance of his work. The old maxim about those who don't know the past are condemned to repeat it bears some expansion, namely that those who know about the past but don't use it for anything also also condemned to letting it repeat itself. Really, now, what's the point of all this if we're totally open about the fact that it doesn't mean anything? Or, more precisely, that we don't want to take the risk of making it mean something??? Does anyone in the real world really care about "provincializing Europe" as a concept rather than as a project? That's what I like to ponder at night, instead of watching TV. ha.

- The self-importance. Claiming we accomplished something. Yeah, right. All we accomplished was another line on the CV. That's something, at least. Something totally self-promoting. Sure, I'll be doing the same thing along with everyone else, yet another line to prove that I "do" stuff. But let's be honest, no one in this room changed the world today. REALLY. We sat around congratulating ourselves on our ability to manipulate buzzwords and show off what we know.

All that said, the ENS Lyon is bizarre, looks kind of like an orphan Frank Gehry building or something?

On that note, I have to run to my panel now, where I'll be doing all those obnoxious things mentioned above. Within reason, I hope!!!