Lectures à la fleur—Introduction

[a] Audience RF

As part of a normal academic career, I am called upon to give lectures. It is as much a part of my job as teaching, serving on committees, or advising students. It goes with the territory, and I already know that a number of my colleagues the world over love it while others despise it. A whole bunch more lie somewhere in the middle.

I love it.

Let me be clear about this, because it explains the differences (all quite respectable) between those who enjoy lecturing, those who detest it, and the vast majority who see it as a cross between between committee work and mowing the lawn. I am speaking here not of the kinds of academic presentations we give to fellow teachers and researchers, but rather to the lecture requests that come from student groups, community organizations, and "non-specialist" talks on other campuses. 

[b] Speechthought RF

These are not the kinds of things that any of us would put on a serious CV (Curriculum Vitae) or resumé, hence the ambivalence many professors feel about accepting invitations. They are almost always not compensated. Even so, though, some of us see these requests as opportunities to reach a wider audience than can ever be found within the ivy-covered walls of academe. In particular, I perceive these opportunities as practice in bridging the all-too-disturbing gaps between the way we talk in academia and the way serious matters are discussed beyond it. I am disturbed beyond any sense of outward calm at the sloppy manner in which most complex issues are discussed in the press and beyond academia. These lectures at least allow me to hone my message (here in the minor leagues of public persuasion), just in case I ever get the call to pitch in the show, and am interviewed by Kelly Ripa or Whoopi Goldberg. Just...in case I make it onto Fox and Friends.

Don't blow it, I think to myself. And wait...and wait.

One would think that other academics would flock to these opportunities (and, indeed, many do), in order to "complicate" the discussion out there, even as we seek to entertain an audience and keep them listening. This is something academics rarely have to consider, since extra-curricular jaw-dropping—and drooling daytime lecture napping—is so common at academic lectures that we all have developed an ethnographic perspicacity with regard to "listeners" who seemingly sleep with eyes wide-open.

I'm tired of it, and tired of inane discussions of "free will" and derivative individual psychology when discussing intricate matters of social behavior. That's the pathetic depth level (ankle high) on most television and radio. These lectures are meant to contribute, in a very small yet serious way, to "problematizing" the discussion.

***  ***

[b] Spokesgoat RF

The lectures that I will be collecting here are independent of my "scholarly" talks, which makes the first set of posts to Beloit College's Mortar Board somewhat ironic (the topic about which I was asked to speak is scholarship). The other lectures in the series will vary from addresses I gave as president of Beloit College's Phi Beta Kappa chapter, introductory and concluding lectures at Beloit College's Center for Language Studies, and several presentations given for the community's Society for Learning Unlimited (SLU) on topics ranging from Chinese sacred mountains to world travelers in the nineteenth century.
                         
It should come as no surprise to any reader of this blog that my enjoyment in presenting to these audiences is not at all unlike the reason why I never tire of writing blog posts (even as people counsel me to "slow down" and write less). Nope; sorry. I have no intention of cutting back on lecturing, and do not take seriously the warning that I might lose readers. Audience? What? Is this about generating ideas, or am I trying to become a Chinese cosmological version of Pioneer Woman (and don't get me wrong; she's stunningly good at what she does)? Still my blog is about ideas and overthinking history, society, and culture (this alone cuts the audience into a tiny sliver). My lectures have the same tone. Round and Square will be just fine; it has a healthy international readership. Almost fifty percent of page hits come from beyond the United States, and fully thirty-percent come from countries without English as a major language. In addition, there is a nice readerly coating of the fifty United States, on top of it all.

[c] Captive RF

It's not as though I am going to move to a ranch and start PhotoShopping pictures of my cats or calling my spouse "Texas Dostoevsky Scholar." On the other hand, Ms. Pioneer might be onto something with those recipes. They have gotten me thinking. Watch for "Ostracism" and "Do Over" cookbooks in the coming weeks, as well as "Exilic Response" dinner parties and "Breaking the Vessel" aperitifs.

Still, I would rather keep lecturing, writing, and trying to reach a broader audience than to follow the prescriptions for viral postings (not very likely, in any case, for a blog that seeks to "overthink" everything). This series of posts will show just how a passion for ideas, a desire to speak to people beyond "the academy," and serious scholarship can all come together in one speaking occasion. I would say that there are about 20,000 of us in academia (a tiny portion) who care passionately about this audience thing. Take these posts for what they are—a small attempt to change the discourse, as Michel Foucault might say, from trite ramblings on the right and left (red and blue) to something a little more intellectually meaty and analytically saucy. It is reassuring to know that am not alone, but most academics still seem content to speak only to each other—and that will just not do.

Join me on these pages for a series of lectures on complex topics delivered to audiences that expect, at the very least, not to be put to sleep by jargon. Captive they may be (most audiences are, indeed, trapped), but uncritical they most decidedly are not.