回「為甚麼要對學者有期望？」

思存在新作「為甚麼要對學者有期望？」中說：

朋友回應說：其實我們為甚麼要對學者有那麼大期望呢。 我們應該要對學者沒有期望。（正如我們不需要對大學生／基督徒／老師／社工／新聞工作者有特別期望？）因為學位、知識與良知是脫鉤的。學位、知識與權力、資源和地位才有一點點的關係。

其實，他文中的「朋友」，正是我。
（其實最初我的括號內只有基督徒，卻不知為何他加上一大串大學生／老師／社工／新聞工作者，嘿 ~）
（至於為何我只指向基督徒，well，這與我的經驗有關，恕我不能多說，嘿 ~）

大抵我認為，飽讀詩書的也是人。

我習慣（也學習中）對人無期望，只對自己有期望。人家對你好，有良知，不是應然，而是對自己的一個bonus。

對任何人和事不存期望，對令人失望的人和事就不會那麼失望，對美好的人和事便會有更深驚喜、更多的欣賞、和更知珍惜。

傅柯也說，知識與權力的關係千絲萬縷；知識份子不是帶來真理的人，也不是掌握真理的人。

******

或許，我更想說，我們不必對高等學府有期望。

重讀我去年寫的「大學之道」，仍然心有戚戚然。因為當中對廢墟中的大學的描述，仍相當貼切，而且還有江河日下、每下愈況之勢。

其實，我在那不堪的體制內認識不少有識有承坦的師友。當中有些默默地在體制內做一些他們能做的事情，這是學生之幸。

不幸的是：有些選擇離開香港繼續教學事業或升學，另謀出路；有些在香港取得博士學位的朋友，對在港前景不存厚望，只好放眼內地海外；有些想繼續深造的人，則望而卻步。

因為，香港學術環境差劣，香港也不重視本地培訓的學術人才，更甚者，香港根本不重視學術。

*****

行文至此，我想起Edward Said對知識份子的社會責任和功能作出動人的描寫。

或許，我說不應對學者／大學有期望，只是負氣說話？

******

思存又說：

這樣想，是會令人寬懷，還是變得更犬儒呢。

記起有一次和朋友討論，前言後語，我也不記得太清楚。大抵是，我們不滿這樣，不滿那樣，卻又不能提供一些有建設性的建議，改善這樣和那樣。

然後朋友問我：「其實我們是不是犬儒呢？」

那時候我答，其實我不知什麼是犬儒，所以我不是。

現在我自問自答：

其實我是不是犬儒呢？

是的，我是犬儒。

*****

其實，以上牢騷，我不知說了多少遍。

「大學之道」，是去年年中的一份功課；以下的 Academic as an Intellectual，是去年年尾的一份功課。（見笑了……）

我犬儒之餘，也懂得一雞兩味。

可見，我不是愚昧的。

（嘿~）

*****

Academic as an Intellectual

Instead of saying this piece as diary notes, I would like to consider it as a summary of my thought on functions of intellectuals, with reference to your lectures and readings, as well as the recent move of internationalization of the tertiary institution that I am working for.

First of all, I agree to Gramsci that ‘all men are intellectuals’ (Said, 1994, p.3). All people have their strength and specialization. They can be said to be an expert in their own profession, no matter they are doctors, lawyers, construction workers, housewives or else.

It is not surprising that higher expectation is put on highly educated people – the most common definition of intellectual. In my case, they refer to academics, who are supposed to be knowledgeable and relatively resourceful, and who I always contact with.

I, together with most people, expect academics to have social awareness, independent and critical mindset, insightful vision and strong commitment not only to academic research and teaching, but also to society and even the world.

To me, Gramsci and Julien Benda have given clear accounts of the role of intellectual, whilst Said’s (1994) is a touching one. I find it touching not only because it matches my expectation on intellectuals, but also because Said has truly committed to what he wrote and believes in.

Cultural studies training further inspires me that, as Ien Ang (2003) highlights, intellectuals should be reflective and socially accountable.

However, we are facing a cruel fact that universities are in ruins (Readings, 1996). Ang (2003) mentions that universities in Australia ‘become more involved and integrated with the wider community and society at large’. However, the rationale behind is economic as it is ‘a way of getting more external funding for research in a time of diminishing public funds’. Then, ‘the unintended consequence is that the significance of research activities which are not based on the securing of external funding is symbolically diminished, remaining more or less invisible to the university community as a whole. This, as should be clear, is especially disadvantageous for humanities research’.

Unfortunately, and probably not surprisingly, similar things are happening in Hong Kong. Public funding for higher education is diminishing. Scarce resources are given more to commercial, practical and instrumental researches than humanities one. In order to enhance their competitiveness in bidding public and other external funding, universities uncritically incline to the economic and political trend. They emphasize on economic efficiency and quantitative evaluation. Their policies are economic-driven.

The consequences are disturbing. Academics are now busy with preparing figures and administrative documents, attending numerous administrative meetings, designing ‘attractive’ courses and programmes to secure student enrollments. Most of them would rather use their limited research time to conduct ‘marketable’ researches, such as projects on the Greater China, and medical and social researches on infectious diseases – it is an increasingly emerging field after the outbreak of SARS. Academics, and universities in general, are pleased to participate in community services and set up research centres and so forth. However, instead of for the well-beings of the community, the former do these may be merely for enriching their C.V., while the latter for building up their brand name.

There was a concern if academic freedom in Hong Kong would be undermined by political force after the sovereignty handover. True, academic freedom is being undermined. But as far as I see, it is not due to political reason, but economic one.

To me, most academics in Hong Kong, as well as local universities in general, fail in fulfilling the functions of intellectual. At least, they have not made sufficient criticisms and counter efforts against unfair and short-sighted public policies in Hong Kong.

Recently, the university that I am working for is taking significant steps to ‘internationalize’ itself. As far as I see, internationalization refers to attract more English-speaking overseas students and enhancing the world status of the university, especially in the English-speaking community. While one of the university missions is emphasizing bilingualism (i.e. Chinese and English) and biculturalism (i.e. Chinese and Western cultures), and most of non-local students at present and in the foreseeable future is from the Mainland China, the university is making its move to replace Chinese with English as the medium of instruction.

I see the university’s policy of internationalization is problematic. I do not mean that the university should not be internationalized. Instead, I believe it should be, but not in this way. My reasons are so long that I cannot elaborate them here. In short, the university’s definition of internationalization is narrow with serious cultural bias against non-English speaking world. The policy is undermining the university’s tradition and uniqueness. Perhaps more importantly, its move can further marginalize Chinese language (written Chinese and Cantonese), which is the mother language of most Hong Kong people but is often being perceived as inferior. The university may achieve its ‘internationalization’ at the expense of Hong Kong identity. It is also taking a risk to turn itself into a vocational and language training centre, instead of being a tertiary institution nurturing students’ reflectivity, social awareness, independent and critical thinking etc.

The policy of internationalization reveals that policy makers in the university, who are also intellectual, lack foresight and cultural awareness. They run the university as running a business corporation.

Fortunately, I know some academics do really care about their students, the university, society and the world. Yet, they are few in number. They are often the minority against unfair university’s policies, public policies and corrupt social trends. They are often upset, and have strong sense of helplessness and even hopelessness. But many of them still strive to do what they can do with courage and determination.


Reference

Ien, Ang (2003). Who Needs Cultural Research?

Readings, Bill (1996). The University in Ruins. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: Harvard University Press.

Said, Edward (1994). Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures. London: Vintage.