Worthwhile writing?

So here's the deal. When you're young and idealistic you fantasize about all the ways you will change the world, solving hunger and disease, reading books to blind old ladies and doing all the things which the compromised adults around you don't. But then it would be rude not to do well at your GCSEs, but once those are out the way, THEN you will conquer the world.

Having done surprisingly well at these 'ere exams, you suddenly realise you might, contrary to Miss Simpson's expectations, get into the sixth form after all, and so apply yourself to your A-levels, knowing full well that they can only improve your chances of dong Good Things. And so it goes on, Degree, Masters and Doctorate until you find yourself owing The Man hefty amounts of cash so it would be rude not to get a job.

And so you find yourself in academia, surrounded by bureaucracy and administration, thinking how did this all come about? But, AND HERE'S THE TRICK, you convince yourself that you can actually do good here. That your moral crusade will be satisfied through your writing (after all, look at Karl Marx - or Carl Marks as one of my students called him) and by teaching the young (which is prac-tic-ally the same as helping blind grannies, isn't it?).

This delusion is helped, of course, not simply by all the other lecturers who have built up a moral culture which represents teachers and writers as the enlightened few, but also the philosophical bent of your subject (in this case Critical Management Studies) which claims the moral high-ground through occasional references to exploitation, ideology and work intensification....

What we miss in our moral bunker, of course, are two things. First, EVERYONE in academia, (apart from marketing, who lets face it shouldn't be here) thinks the same way. Economists believe their creating wealth for the poor, sociologist claim they're criticising social exclusion or deprivation and philosophers have the noble pursuit of truth as their own. Second, the writing which is prized in academia is, as one commentator below suggested, stripped of all (real) radical, emotional and purposeful intent through a peer-review process which makes vanilla anything which tastes too sharp. Whilst it is untrue historically to state that writing never changed anything, I think it will certainly be a charge levelled at academics in the 21st century.

Personally, I'm beginning to feel much more like a cog in the machine than even the slightest force for change. Sure, you might tell students about third world sweat-shops, but at the end of the day, they'll leave with their BA (hons) in Management and buy the goods that sustain those sweatshops. You may write a paper with the words exploitation or morality in the abstract, but you must know that the complexity of language preclude any such writing from reaching the eyes of decision-makers. In short, I remain (and hope) to be convinced of the value of what I'm currently trying too hard to be good at.

The pursuit of 'appiness

The joke at school was to pay a visit to 'Curly' and ask "do you want happiness?". When the unfortunately bespectacled one replied "yes", we would yell "Curly hasn't got a penis!" and promptly batter him to within an inch of his life.

Without meaning to stretch (ha ha) the phallic metaphor too much, the acquisition of things large, shiny or new seems to be (as Marx predicted) the primary goal for humanity in their pursuit of happiness or meaning in life. Academics are unclear whether the accumulation phenomenon is, as the existentialists have it, simply a distraction from the gnawing angst of modern meaninglessness, a hangover from the resource-scarce time of old or the primary driver for the creation of wealth and, therefore, the elimination of poverty.

Regardless, it is clear that this object of desire has failed in both achieving the promise of happiness and in providing a sustainable strategy for the survival of the human race. A recent report from Princeton (so it must be true) found that poorer people were, on average, happier than the rich, because they spent more time doing things they enjoyed. It is evident that both the foundations for economic growth (such as flexible labour markets, weak labour laws and open economies) as well as some results of this growth (environmental damage, stress and a class divide) lead to instability, the destruction of communities and the encroachment of business into government. In short, it ain't working.

Many activists suggest that the only cure for this is a reversion to an anarcho-marxism in which local governance and public ownership replace corporatism and liberal economies. This is, of course, nonsense upon stilts. However, if this isn't the answer, then what is?