Generosity in Hard Times

Over the course of the last couple of years, I’ve spoken on several college and university campuses where faculty, staff, students, and administrators have been thinking about how to create and support a greater sense of connection between their campus communities and their public-facing mission. The folks who invited me — ranging from the officers of campus AAUP chapters to presidential advisors — felt a connection with the arguments being made in Generous Thinking not least because of their recognition that their institutions require not just better strategic plans but deep culture change. That culture change demands, among other things, a serious rethinking of how we work, why we work the ways we do, how we assess and reward that work, and how we recognize as work things that tend to get dismissed as service but that play a crucial role in building and sustaining collaborative communities.

Making a better, more sustainable institution, in other words, requires us to move away from quantified metrics for meritorious production — in fact to step off the Fordist production line that forever asks us to do more — and instead to think in a humane fashion about ways that we can do better. Better often in fact requires slowing down, talking with our colleagues and our communities, and most importantly, listening to what others have to say. Better requires engagement, connection, sharing, in ways that more nearly always encourages us to rush past. Turning from more to better goes against some of the ingrained ways of working we’ve adopted, but that turn can help us access the pleasures — indeed, the joys — of our work that life on the production line has required us to push aside.

But after one of the talks I gave, an attendee asked me a question that’s lingered in the back of my head ever since: generosity is all well and good, she said, and something that it’s relatively easy to embrace when we’re flush, but how do we practice generosity in hard times? Can we afford to be generous when we’re facing significant budget cuts, for instance, or is it inevitable that we fall back into analytics-driven competition with every unit — much less every worker — out to protect their own resources and their own privileges?

I don’t remember how I answered then. I suspect that it was some combination of “you’re exactly right; that’s the real question” and “the difficulties involved in being generous in hard times are exactly why we need to practice generosity in a determined way in good times.” And I may have said some things about the importance of transparency in priority-setting and decision-making, and of involving the collective in that process.

But I do know that as I stood there saying whatever I said, I was thinking “wow, this is hard, I don’t know.” I don’t know how we find the wherewithal to remain generous when times are bad, except by having practiced generosity enough to have developed some muscle memory. And I especially don’t know how we remain generous at a moment when our institutions are approaching us — we who work for them, as well as we who rely on them — invoking the notion of a shared sacrifice required to keep the institution running. I don’t know because I do want the institution to survive, and I want to maintain the community that it enables, but I also know that the sacrifices that are called for are never genuinely equitably distributed.

And I also know that however much I may want to keep the institution running, the institution is not thinking the same about me. Our institutions will not, cannot, love us back. However much we sacrifice for them, they cannot, will not, sacrifice for us. As with so many of my thoughts, this understanding was clarified for me by Tressie McMillan Cottom, who posted a Twitter thread describing the advice she gives to Black scholars who ask her how to survive the academy. One tweet in particular stuck with me:

This is especially true for minoritized groups working within the academy; it’s especially true for faculty without tenure; it’s especially true for staff; it’s especially true for scholars working in contingent positions; it’s especially true for everyone whose positions in the hierarchies of prestige and comfort leave them vulnerable, especially at moments when “we’re all in it together” is invoked not in the context of resource-sharing but of sacrifice.

Sacrifice tends to roll downhill, and to accelerate in the process.

That is, unless we build structures to channel it otherwise. And this is the deepest goal of Generous Thinking. I’m far less focused in the book on getting individual academics to think more generously than I am on what is required for us collectively to build a more generous environment in which we can do our work together. That is to say: what would be required for us remake the university into an institution that was structurally capable of living up to its duty of care for all of its members, in good times and bad?

There’s a catch in that question, of course: the university is not going to remake itself. It has to be remade. And the “us” that I’m pointing to as doing the remaking is meant to indicate those members of the university community who are to varying extents empowered and motivated to take that work on. But it’s unquestionably true that the empowerment and motivation of that “us” vary enormously from position to position, from institution to institution.

I spoke last year at a large midwestern public institution that had hands-down the most demoralized faculty I’d ever encountered. The reasons for that state have become painfully clear, if you’ve been watching the higher education news over the last week: they’ve got a right-wing activist president who is bent on transforming the institution into a fully corporate enterprise, and on undermining everything that ties the institution to the liberal arts, to critical thinking, to public service, to community. The faculty members I talked to despaired of their ability to do anything with such a force at the top of their institution, much less with the board that hired him.

There’s reason to despair in such circumstances, without question. But for whatever combination of reasons — privilege, thickheadedness, temperamental indisposition — I’m not able to sit back and say, oh well then. Generous Thinking is in large part about finding the things that we can do, the basis for and the places of trying. Some of those places are internal: finding ways to engage in a deeper, more attentive manner with the work that others are doing, and drawing out what’s best in that work to build upon rather than focusing on what’s absent from it or what it doesn’t take on. Some of those places are external, but personal: finding ways to develop working relationships with our colleagues, with our students, and with our communities that invite them into the work we’re doing, that share it with them, and that make that work into a form of collective action. And some of these places are external, but structural: finding ways to make it possible for others to engage in this kind of generous thinking as well.

This call to structural work is the call to institutional transformation I issue in my last chapter — again, not a call for us to do more to support and sustain our institutions but a call to do better in ways that can help build institutions that are worth supporting and sustaining. But here’s the thing: while it would certainly be helpful to have goodwill at the top of that institution as we try to remake it, I do not believe that better requires executive-level power to put into effect.

My colleague Bill Hart-Davidson has said that universities are built of three primary elements: buildings, which change only very slowly and expensively; people, who come and go more quickly than the buildings do but, being people, carry their own resistance to change; and documents, which often get treated as if they’re immutable but are in fact always editable by someone, somewhere.

Those documents are one key to institutional change, especially in thinking about the kinds of change that can be created where you are. Documents under local control, such as department-level bylaws and policies, might be revisited and revised to create more inclusive environments, for instance: to consider a broader range of forms of intellectual production under the category of “research,” for instance, or to open up participation in departmental processes to all appointment types. This is a form of change that may only be local, but that can transform a unit’s culture and increase its morale in ways that other units might notice and emulate. Grassroots change like this can grow, and can create change both outward and upward.

This is just one example of what has been boiled down into the slogan “lead where you are.” Each of us has certain kinds of influence over certain aspects of our local circumstances, and by working together to improve those circumstances for those around us, we can inspire further change. That potential is part of what allows me to remain optimistic about working toward structural forms of generous thinking even in hard times. Because another world is possible, if we’re willing to take the making of it on.

* * *

There’s much more to think about here, so much more that I haven’t even contemplated yet much less thought through. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

119 thoughts on “Generosity in Hard Times

  1. Thanks for this clear-eyed view of “sacrifice” and for amplifying Tressie McMillan Cottom’s tweets! Your comments about documents remind me of Sara Ahmed’s cautionary analysis about race equality documents becoming substitutes for action. (On Being Included, 100-105; 114-21) I think changing bylaws can be stepping stones toward action, and necessary steps. Somehow we must embody those inclusive practices and recalibrate our practices with guidance from and in response to other participants (“all appointment types”). If teaching assistants and adjuncts were truly at the table for those revisions, many structures would be upended. Further, as la paperson argues in A Third University is Possible, these individuals are not discrete; they/we extend beyond ourselves “into the system’s capacity.” That systemic agency is very exciting because it may help create new possibilities that are far more fecund.

    1. Thank you Sharon Irish for the reference to A Third University is Possible. I am intrigued by the blurb:

      A Third University is Possible unravels the intimate relationship between the more than 200 US land grant institutions, American settler colonialism, and contemporary university expansion. Author la paperson cracks open uncanny connections between Indian boarding schools, Black education, and missionary schools in Kenya; and between the Department of Homeland Security and the University of California. Central to la paperson’s discussion is the “scyborg,” a decolonizing agent of technological subversion.

      Drawing parallels to Third Cinema and Black filmmaking assemblages, A Third University is Possible ultimately presents a framework for hotwiring university “machines” to the practical work of decolonization.

      I am very intrigued by the notion of “scyborg” which autocorrect wants to render as “cyborg”. We are very interested here in Canada about reconciliation and the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) and the legacy of Indian residential schools. I am sure there are some great connections to make with the work of la paperson.

      Thanks

      F

    2. Let me second François’s thanks for A Third University is Possible, as well as for the link to the Imagining America conversation. I’ll be registering, absolutely. I’m also glad that you’ve reminded me of that key bit from Ahmed: documents can too often become substitutes for action. But there are some documents that define the parameters of required action, and that can be used to ensure that such parameters are followed. And you’re absolutely right that embodying those practices requires deep inclusivity. I’ll look forward to reading, and to listening…

      1. I have returned to paperson’s book quite a bit. I mostly mentioned embodied practice because I need to be reminded of it! So often in academia I feel like bodies are erased.

  2. Kathleen

    As usual I appreciate the great food for thought that you serve up. I chuckled inwardly when I thought that what we need is “more better”. The solecism sent me to the dictionary and found

    solecism | ?s?l?s?z(?)m |
    noun
    * a grammatical mistake in speech or writing.
    * a breach of good manners; an instance of incorrect behaviour.

    The cultural change will need to encompass an examination of who gets to decide what counts as improper. Indeed we can query along with Derrida the binary of the improper/proper.

    Derrida contends that this inconsistency between the proper and the improper senses of spirit is unstable at its point of origin, as there is an inner connection between them. (Derrida 1989, 96-98) << Source: page 261 Heideggar with Derrida: Being Written, “Derrida’s Avoidance” by Dror Pimental.

    It breathes new meaning into the expression “school spirit”.

    As ever,

    F

  3. Thanks for this, Kathleen. There are already so many parts at a university, moving, fixed, or otherwise. Crises like the one we’re in now unfortunately require agile, clear policy decisions when we’ve become accustomed to a lot of institutional fuzziness.

  4. Quietly, last week, our Academic Senate approved a report by the Professional Standards Cmt that has grave findings for our new TP process & addresses systemic inequities for our diverse faculty & addresses admin & got structure for fixing these things.

  5. I want to add to the mix here a set of merged talks given by Bethany Nowviskie. She writes in the preliminaries:

    among my major themes tonight will be the complementary notions of capacity and of care: two ideas that rarely appear together—particularly as they seem to work on different ends of the scale, and are so differently gendered—in our discourse about the humanities in the digital age.

    http://nowviskie.org/2015/on-capacity-and-care/

Reposts

  • Ashley SandersGarcia
  • Michael E. Sinatra
  • Leigh Bonds
  • Bill Hart-Davidson
  • Cathy Davidson
  • Scarlet Galvan
  • Dr. Amanda Visconti
  • Brandon Locke
  • Sarah Bay-Cheng
  • Claudia Berger
  • Nuno Meireles
  • R?ss Mounce
  • jim hahn
  • Hannah Alpert-Abrams ??
  • Erin Templeton
  • Sharon Irish
  • ??. ????? ?????? ????

Mentions

  • nicole edge
  • Oya Y Rieger
  • Natasha Heller
  • Brandon Walsh
  • OpenSexism
  • Dana
  • meredith kahn
  • Shannon K. Supple ?
  • Tom Scheinfeldt
  • Quinn Dombrowski
  • Derek Kompare
  • Bill Hart-Davidson
  • prof_oa
  • Open Learning & Teaching Collaborative
  • unibcarlson
  • Greg Britton
  • Eileen Clancy
  • Dr. Donna Lanclos
  • Chris Long
  • Jennifer Hart
  • Beronda Montgomery
  • Sam Bruzzese
  • Paula Patch
  • Kreigh Knerr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.