All I could do was to look at my friend with a blank expression, completely stunned and humbled. These words weren’t spoken with the least bit of aggression, as one might think. Rather, they were delivered with a straight, honest face and in a soft-spoken manner, and still managed to convey all the seriousness in the world. The words struck me more so for two reasons. Firstly, I consider my undergraduate senior thesis to be the culmination and high-point of a grueling intellectual journey undertaken over five years. Secondly, my project is dedicated to my friends because they have often been my most ardent supporters as well as my harshest critics during this journey. Yet, there she was, a friend mind you, effortlessly reducing my best academic work to a heap of worthless trash!

In retrospect, her attitude towards a piece of academic writing and a person who aspires to be an academic was not surprising at all. Current opinion on the value and worth of the institutional home of the academic — the university — is far from being conclusively positive. My friend had recently experienced and witnessed some of the worst tendencies of academia at a conference at which she presented a paper. Rather than asking a question about the presentation, a philosophy instructor in the audience had chosen to speak to my friend in a patronizing manner, suggesting that her interest in her chosen subject of inquiry was worrisome, thinking that it was unhealthy for a girl of her age.

Thus, understanding the source of her disdain towards my project was not difficult. Academics and university professors aren’t always worthy role-models, to say the least. Many people I’ve spoken to insist that academics don’t really do anything, just talk; and you can bet there’s going to be a lot of self-serving conversation (at academic conferences, for example, not to say that there aren’t constructive conferences). No wonder academics are often guilty of having inflated egos, which would put the most proud of monarchs to shame. Moreover, academics often have a (well-earned) reputation for being dreamers whose “work” isn’t really of much worth. They don’t really live in the “real world” (or so we are told).

This is not only the view of those who remain outside the university as an institution, but also of those who are very much part of it. Let me cite a few examples from the field of study with which I am most familiar. With regards to economics, Robert Heilbroner and William Milberg have written that “at its peaks, the ‘high theorizing’ of the present period attains a degree of unreality that can be matched only by medieval scholasticism” (The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought, pg. 4). John Kay (Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics) wrote an essay last year on the state of economics and concluded it with a remark about economists’ “work” during this last economic crisis: “Economists – in government agencies as well as universities – were obsessively playing Grand Theft Auto [a video game] while the world around them was falling apart.” In a similar vein, an article published in 2009 by The Economist on the state of economics was titled “The other-worldly philosophers.” Of course, even though these observations are restricted to economics as a discipline and as a profession, I wouldn’t hesitate to think that they are indicative of the culture of academia in general. In doing so, I am following Peter Berger, who in his article on the state of sociology, says:

“In diagnosing the condition of sociology, one should not view it in isolation. Its symptoms tend to be those afflicting the intellectual life in general.” [Peter L. Berger, “Sociology: A Disinvitation?,” Society (November/December 1992): 18.]

What does all this mean for my (and others’) aspirations of being an academic? Despite the above observations, the fact remains that academia as a world in itself is very real and its influence is far-reaching, extending into society, politics and economics no less. The crucial question is this: Can academics – and the university as an institution – still engage with society in a meaningful and constructive manner? A dialogical relationship with society at large is a must if universities are to remain relevant to modern society in general and to the varying, specific cultural contexts in which they are individually situated.

Another friend recently asked me something to the following effect: “So after this undergraduate experience, have you become disillusioned with academia?” My answer to this question is both yes and no. Yes, there are many narrow-minded ideologues and pseudo-intellectuals whose work and teaching make students like me (who are not yet truly entrenched in academia like many of our professors are) question the supposed worth of academia. At the same time, there are academics whose work informs and contextualizes public debates and conversations so as to make them more constructive and relevant. That is, they do help improve our understanding of our world and of ourselves.

One of my teachers recently said to me that the best writing is that which is informed by an academic perspective, yet is accessible to an educated non-specialist. This remark encapsulates for me the idea of a “public intellectual”, which perhaps serves as a more worthy model than that of a “pure academic.” Far from being an “other-worldly philosopher”, the public intellectual is not a permanent resident of the proverbial ivory tower – more like a visitor. While enthusiastically participating in the town square adjoining the tower, he does bring to his discussions in the former the perspective he gains from trips to the latter. Conversely, his view of the town square from above is consciously shaped by his experience on the ground in the town square. That is, the public intellectual allows his academic work and his engagement with the public at large to re-shape and complement each other in a dialectical manner.

Periods of change and transition offer us good opportunities to reflect on the past. Having just finished undergraduate studies spanning half a decade, I’d say my experience of academia has been a mixed bag. There certainly has been a certain amount of disillusionment, but I have no doubt universities and academics still have a lot to offer. However, to remain relevant and to be able to contribute, current and future academics will do well to listen closely to the voices – coming from within and without academia – which are expressing dissatisfaction about the current role of academia (or the lack thereof) in helping societies across the world grapple with major concerns of the day. Ignoring these voices will only undermine their own value as academics and of the university as a major institution.

Daniyal Khan is an undergraduate student at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). He is working on his thesis “Heilbroner and Weber: Economics as a Science, Economics as a Vocation.” This contribution was stimulated by his research on that project. -Jeff

In A Brief History of Economics: Artful Approaches to the Dismal Science, Ray Canterberry states that Robert Heilbroner:

…attributes his social conscience to his feelings of indignation when he realized that his mother could give orders to her chauffeur only because his beloved “Willy” needed the money and she had it. “Willy” was an intimate yet “William” was a servant, distinguished only by the formal driver’s uniform that he wore. (pg. 334)

He concludes the section on Heilbroner’s vision of capitalism by noting that “his [i.e, Heilbroner’s] vision is little removed from his early concern about his mother’s wealth being the source of domination of poor Willy Gerkin, his surrogate father.” (pg. 337) If it is indeed the case that this particular life-experience was central in shaping Heilbroner’s vision of capitalism, then it gives way to a few interesting and illuminating implications.

Firstly, it challenges Heilbroner’s own contention expressed in Behind the Veil of Economics: Essays in the Worldly Philosophy that visions can hardly be traced back to the experiences that determine them:

At this deepest level of social inquiry [i.e. at the level of vision] our analytic and expository powers diminish almost to the vanishing point. We can say very little as to the sources of these constellations that we project into the social universe. Few of us can trace to their social or personal roots the experiences that frame our own visions. (pg. 198)

Secondly, it shows how consciousness of the social expression of Marxian self-alienation – the self-alienation of the proletariat from the bourgeois capitalist class – in a member of the capitalist class can lead to a far reaching vision and imagination of the latent possibilities within capitalism as broadly defined by Heilbroner.

From these two implications, I wish to turn towards a specific social context all too familiar to me: the relationship of the wealthy in urban Pakistani society with their household servants. William Gerkin does not really serve as a satisfactory representative of servants in urban Pakistan. The degree of domination exercised over them and the lack of dignity accorded to them are far greater than in the case of servants in America. They have a contradictory and tense relationship of mutual dependence and mutual distrust with their employers (or masters, if I can be honest in a manner which was characteristic of Professor Heilbroner).

It is a relationship of mutual dependence because the wealthy depend on the servants for a large part of the upkeep and management of the household. The servants depend on their masters for their income as well as some financial assistance or charity for their health and marriage expenditures when they are extremely lucky.

It is also a relationship of mutual distrust. The masters rarely trust their servants, who, despite being members of the household, are not trusted with security of the household on their own. In fact, quite often servants are the first suspects and are arrested in the case of a robbery. This cannot happen without the approval, tacit or otherwise, of the masters and, thus, reveals the extent of distrust and domination. The distrust felt by the servants is not hard to imagine. With extravagant amounts of wealth being employed to dominate and exploit them, with little dignity accorded to them, with verbal and physical abuse being common and with ridiculously low wages, it is no surprise that they should feel a strong distrust of their masters. As to who gains disproportionately from such relationships, it is obvious.

Relationships in which a servant may become an intimate, in the manner of William Gerkin, are rare. I have been, however, witness to such a relationship between my grandmother and her middle-aged servant who has been attached to the extended family since before his teens. The relationship is indeed comparable to that of a “surrogate mother” and son. Yet, to my understanding, such relationships have failed to inculcate a consciousness of the pressing nature of the problem of power arising from wealth (exemplified by the case of William Gerkin) as was the case with Professor Heilbroner. These relationships appear to me to be lost opportunities for understanding and change which are becoming ever more rare by the day.

Even though it is the servants who are considered poor by their masters (and rightly so from a strictly material, financial perspective), it appears that from another perspective, it is actually the other way around. The masters of these servants despite possessing wealth are poor in their inability to overcome their prejudices, class interests and cowardice, and to gain from their servants an explicit firsthand account of the sufferings and troubles of the latter which, if genuinely gained, would leave a lasting impression which may change fundamental social attitudes and perceptions.

That is, however, not the case. The servants remain confined to their separate quarters in the household; out of sight, out of mind. The masters fail to gain an awareness of the social conditions of these members of the household whose presence turns the household into a microcosm of a dual economy. We (the masters, the bourgeois capitalists) are alienated from that part of our collective self without which we cannot live (our servants, the proletariat). Our relationships with our servants, which less and less offer us the chance to become conscious of this self-alienation as was the case with Robert Heilbroner, are our lost opportunities. And we shall remain poor till these opportunities are consciously grasped.