Tensions

I think tension is a great word. It conveys both separation and connection. For example, I love the poetry of Leonard Cohen because of the tension between the sacred and profane.

In my own work, I am playing with tensions as well. For me, the tensions are less substantive and more stylistic. I prefer to write my academic articles with distinctive and deliberate flippancy. I do this to battle my own internal tensions. I, like many academics (or almost academics), tend towards arrogance and pompous elitism. But, I realize most of this attitude is a reflection of the minor importance of most of our work. In a world where they work hard to have such limited impact, academics imagine they are doing work of singular importance. And I want to remind myself, and others, that what they write isn't that serious. Plus, from a basic philosophical perspective I think that focusing on the impact of work, rather than the substance of work, will inevitably decrease its value.

So, how do I remain true to my voice and be taken seriously in the overly-stuffy world of academia? Should I follow the road taken by scholars like Gregory Bateson who never sought internment in the ivory tower? Or is that more self-delusion to compare myself to an intellect such as his? (I realize most people have no idea who Bateson is, but he was an incredible thinker and communicator).

As I said, tension is a great word even if tensions are hard to live with. Maybe I need to embrace them like I do the concept and stop treating them like a riddle.

Bulawayo

My lost, wandering discord
is replaced by the futility
of academic minutiae.
Our flaccid visions enlighten no creation,
only the inevitable causes.
Its undeniable outcome is all
self-abuse and populist rhetoric.
Mugabe treats me well, though:
at least the shadow of him I cast
from my own regret.
All is not lost,
on the horizon of colonial influence.
There is still place in the world,
for my people's burden.