Back from my brain break . . .

at least for a while, and I’ve recently (re)turned my attention to what I’ve referred to in a previous post as the ‘professional parcel,’ the marketing of oneself in academe. It’s a funny little dance, isn’t it? Complicated, or perhaps enhanced?, a tad by open-access blogs et al. glimpses of persona via the Web. From my Higher Ed Leadership and org theory coursework (and experience), I’ve come to appreciate the importance of institutional culture, collegial and human resource frameworks, and ‘fit’ (for both the institution and the individual) when it comes to building, enhancing, or contributing to an academic community.

To frame it another way (in my brain’s vernacular), the interviewing/hiring process is, like academe itself, an inherently rhetorical project: the claimant works to establish a desirable ethos in order to persuade her audience that the ‘brand’ of professional teacher/scholar/administrator (logos) and general human being (pathos?), an ethos that lends itself to the going academic/community/professional climate and is consistent with (or at the very least amenable to) the institutional mission and goals. This makes sense to me, but moving theory into practice is not, as always, quite so straightforward.

When I think of my ideal positions, which all have at least some explicit administrative/policy/leadership component, I realize that though from my perspective my training, experience, and scholarship may support in very specific ways the responsibilities associated with the position(s), those hiring for those positions may not necessarily see the connection between, say, rhetoric and administration. Goodness knows I’ve had plenty of practice trying to explain my decision to minor in Ed Leadership and Policy Analysis, though the marriage of the discrete areas seems perfectly logical to me—but I also have something of a tendency toward the enthymematic argument because by the time I reason out a particular conclusion I am so intimately familiar with the premises that got me there that they seem so readily apparent that I worry I will insult my audience by their mention; of course, I also suspect I am not unique in this regard. At any rate, I imagine negotiating the challenge of professional ‘fit’ is shared by just about every person who ever sought a job.

But then there’s the tricky personal tab of the personnel file, the one that could certainly influence ‘fit’ in ways not readily predicted by assessment of the professional profile and posture. Bradley spent some time considering this aspect of the job market dynamic a while back, with specific regard for marriage and political alignment, and in today’s Chronicle, Na'ema Suleiman (pseudonym) frames the consideration in terms of parenthood, specifically motherhood.

For me, the questions are these:

Just how much relevant ‘pathos’ should a person offer when marketing the ‘professional parcel’? Or, more to the point, what ‘pathos’ is relevant?

Does a Web presence actually offer a reprieve from directly engaging these personal matters? Or, is allowing your Web presence to communicate the sticky details that may or may not impact ‘fit’ too evasive or even devious? Or (again) might it serve as a form of passive resistance to answer the kinds of unfortunate circumstances that would make such disclosures a professional liability?

And, finally, the old question persists: would I want to present a version of myself that is in any way fragmented or incomplete . . . would I want to misrepresent myself or my priorities in any way to land the dream job? Would I want a position that required this of me? And what if my professional priorities and my personal priorities are neither in conflict nor inextricably intertwined, but are, to a relevant degree, mutually exclusive? Then is the question of ‘relevant pathos’ moot?

I’d be interested to hear other folks’ thoughts on this. It is exciting, and a little unsettling, to consider . . . but the real question, for me, when it comes right down to it, is this: will all this deliberation actually help me land a job, and once I do, will it help me do my job well?

Let Levi Ride!

In my earlier post today, I mentioned that the Tour de France begins one month from today. Now, in case you hadn't heard, the Tour has been plagued by doping scandals of every variety for several years now, and in an effort to clean up the sport, the ASO (that's the organization that regulates the sport) made the decision in February to ban Team Astana from competing in the Tour because of their past involvement in said scandals. Trouble is, Team Astana has undergone a complete renovation in the off season and, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, has been completely reformed. With their decision, however, the ASO effectively met that Phoenix with the business end of an unfriendly double-barrel.

More to my point, part of Team Astana's reformation included inviting the incomparable Levi Leipheimer to lead the team, a man who joined Team Astana after the (sad) dissolution of the U.S. Team Discovery (formerly U.S. Postal . . . the team led for so many years by a Mr. Lance Armstrong--ever hear of him?).

I realize that of the three people who read my blog, two have absolutely no interest in sports (and that might be a generous estimate, on both counts). I also realize that support for cycling in the U.S. is just about nil. Still, Leipheimer is a dedicated competitor who has always conducted himself honorably. He is an athlete truly worthy of the iconic status of "role model" that is often too easily tossed around in our sports culture: disciplined, fair, humble, immensely talented, and possessing unbelievable endurance. He is the embodiment of all the sport, and especially the Tour, should want to represent.

So I am making an appeal to all you friendly academic types et al. who sometimes visit my musings here to take a half-minute to visit the Let Levi Ride Website and show your support. Please?

So there's no use in weeping / Bear a cheerful spirit still*

CONGRATULATIONS

to the Detroit Red Wings, who clinched the Cup in Pittsburgh last night. While it would have been nice for them to take the series at home, I am glad that the City of Pittsburgh could share that moment with them. It was nice to see that many Pens fans were clapping for the Wings at the end . . . and a few even stayed for the presentation of the trophies! Truly, none are more deserving of hoisting that shiny, 35-pound symbol of victory than the Wings.

Having said that,

Congrats, too, to the Pittsburgh Penguins, who also deserve kudos for fighting to the very last tenth-of-a-second to try to tie it up. It is terrible to come so close only to lose the championship on home ice, but the Pens proved a worthy opponent comprised of fierce competitors of damn-near unparalleled talent. I can't help but have a sense that throughout the series we were witnessing the evolution of a (big-T) Team, and I will be looking forward to next season.

Thus ends my series of posts about hockey . . . but the Tour begins in only a month, and I do have that little-bitty thing called a dissertation to occupy my writing self, so I

Bear a cheerful spirit still*

and focus my attention elsewhere. Thanks to both organizations for a great series--it's been a hell of a show!






*I wonder what Charlotte Bronte, whom I doubt could ever have imagined her work appropriated thus, would have to say about the marriage of poetry and athletics?

Which is worse:

the fact that VP Cheney’s ill-wrought attempt at “West Virginia” humor relied on a lazy and useless trope or the uninspired, vapid commentary issued in response to his snarky remark?

As one who studies rhetoric with an eye to public discourse, I just don’t know what to make of the majority of the comments posted online, the “Web 2.0 New Democracy,” an example of which may be seen over at The Washington Post.

This is the state of our civic discourse?!

Sadly, I have even seen similar discursive techniques, and I use the term loosely, pass as scholarship on rare occasion. But the real question, to my mind, is this: how are we to hold our public officials accountable, how are we even to take each other seriously, when our engagement in public discussions about civic leadership, governance, culture, and participation—not to mention ideological and social difference—amounts to little more than untenable insults, argumenta ad hominem, and generalized smack?

C’mon, folks: shame on us. I know we can do better. Right?

So, I took the Wings in 5 . . .

and I've never been so happy to be wrong! As I watched the game last night, breathless and negotiating that razor's edge between frenzied enthusiasm and waking the kids (or annoying my quiet-by-nature husband), it occurred to me that I really, really wanted the Pens to win. It could be that I was just not ready for the series—and the season—to end. It could be, too, that I am truly just a 'Burgh-sports gal through‘n through. But I think what affected me the most was the way these guys—on both sides—have been playing in the last couple of games: despite a few early hiccups and nonsense, this has become an outstanding, exciting series.

And speaking of outstanding, who could fail to be impressed by Fleury? For my money, he’s the Game 5 MVP. It’s one thing to face 58 shots on goal, most of them rapid-fire, but to face 58 shots courtesy of the Detroit Red Wings? That’s a whole new realm of impressive.

Triple OT, Gonchar’s comeback, Malone’s puck-to-the-face-turned-triumphant-albeit-bloody-return, Fleury’s aforementioned brilliance, Crosby’s quiet leadership—how could I not get behind these guys last night? I still think the Wings are the better team all around and deserve, ultimately, to win the Cup, but I have no problem with the Pens making it a challenge rather than a gimme. Screwy OT penalties that seemed almost contrived—especially the pair of interference calls made in the 1st and 2nd OTs—notwithstanding, last night’s game, to borrow the old cliché, was the stuff of legends. That's what I want out of the playoffs.

I can’t wait for Game 6 . . . but I’m still hopin’ for a trip back to Joe Louis for the big, shiny denouement.