Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Two Canadian faculty members in the humanities take inspiration from the “slow food” movement and apply a similar concept of resisting corporatization to academia. The “slow professor manifesto … challenges the frantic pace and standardization of contemporary culture”. This book is a “must read” for faculty and administrators.
The goal of the Slow movement is to relieve the tyranny of time pressure and the associated health and social problems, not through better “time management” (which usually involves multi-tasking and micro-scheduling tasks into small, fragmented blocks of time) but by faculty using our “agency” in advocating for “deliberation over acceleration … acting purposefully [and] cultivating emotional and intellectual resistance” (x).
Berg & Seeger make pertinent comments on the corporatization of higher education (including frequent references to Collini’s “What are Universities for” – included in this bibliography), but note that “its effect on time begs further attention”). They observe that “the [market] values of productivity, efficiency and competition have time as the common factor” and that “corporatization has sped up the clock” (p. 8). However, they resist the “language of crisis” in regard to higher education, which embraces this sense of urgent and immediate action. Instead, they explain the “slow movement” as way to reinvigorate and re-politicize academic life, not through taking things “in slow motion” but approaching all aspects of life “with care and attention” (p. 11). The book focuses on tenured faculty as best-placed to affect change that (they hope) will gradually “trickle down” to the academy as a whole.
The authors observe that teachers who feel stressed, anxious and rushed negatively affect students as well as themselves. They offer suggestions for “enjoying teaching” and overcoming negative emotions in the classroom, noting that students are far more likely to learn when they enjoy a class. They particularly note the positive power of “narration”, not just telling stories in a course, but telling “the course as a story” (p. 48). They strongly favor face-to-face classes with direct interaction over online courses, and deplore the distraction of phones and multi-tasking on laptops during class.
The chapter “research and understanding” stresses that (good) research takes time and should not be limited to questions that are easily answered and “marketable”, and contrast “knowledge” with “understanding”. In addition “the emphasis on the quantifiable, applied and profitable compromises intellectual community (pitting individuals, departments, faculties and universities in ever-stiffer competition) and intellectual diversity” (p. 58). The culture of speed and competitiveness negatively affects personal relationships and compassion for ‘the other’ while “slowing down … is an ethical choice [it is] taking time for the self and time for the other” (p. 58-9).
This leads to the authors’ discussion of declining “collegiality and community” in academia resulting from corporatization and time pressure. The culture of speed, competition and trying to “get ahead” (as well as the myriad of administrative and “busy-work” tasks that are increasingly falling to faculty) create a negative environment in which faculty feel they cannot take time to “stop and talk to one another” or help one another (p. 73). This often results in a sense of loneliness and isolation which is actually counter-productive. Social interaction (which can often help resolve problems in teaching or research and stimulate ideas) falls by the wayside as being “non-measurable” on reports. This is exacerbated by reliance on electronic communication and “web forums” [also the ubiquitous “webinars”]. Ironically, surveys report “collegiality” as the most important factor for faculty development. Offering seminars, retreats, events etc. does not necessarily help because they require “time and energy, when those are precisely what we are running low on” (p. 77).
Unfortunately “collegiality” itself has entered the realm of “measurable” in terms of faculty reviews and even tenure decisions, and there is a growing danger of “turning collegiality into the exchange of marketable skills” (p. 79) by “social networking” – conversing and collaborating only with those who can help one advance professionally. The slow movement offers to overcome this by recognizing that social interactions and supportive colleagues are important and require time, and that feelings and emotions are critical to well-being – or rather “well be-coming” (p. 82). The authors speak of creating a work place that is a “holding environment” or “supporting net” in which colleagues respect and encourage each other, share emotional burdens, know each other as a person, and solve emotional problems together (p. 82). They stress building community that reduces stress instead of “disavow[ing] emotion in pursuit of hyper-rational and economic goals” (p. 83). In concluding, the authors describe their own collaboration on the book, which began with simple conversation and recognition of a pervasive problem.
A few notes before “questions”.
First, this book has provoked both praise (the leader of our Faculty Development Center and chair of the English Department described it as “fabulous”) and scorn. Take a look at the “comments” on the “Inside Higher Ed.” Review that criticize the book as elitist (written by and for lazy, privileged tenured faculty whining about their workload) and ridiculously impractical. Many are from clearly frustrated adjuncts and recent graduates struggling with impossible workloads who feel (no doubt with good reason) that they cannot possibly afford to “slow down”. (Ironically, quite a few “commenters” admit to not having read the book, presumably because they did not have time). It seems to me that these comments miss several key points. The book is addressed to tenured faculty because we are in the best position to affect positive change (the authors recognize that adjuncts and ‘contract labor’ have little or no voice). The authors are not advocating “do less work”, but rather to focus on important work and resist pressure to do everything in a rush, because the outcomes (including “quality” of research and teaching) are ultimately better. And overall, to recognize and resist the corporate mentality that “doing more with less” – and feeling constantly stressed and overwhelmed – is both normal and praiseworthy.
Second, on a personal note, reading this book was a revelation. It crystalized something that has been gradually dawning on me during my sabbatical: my frenetic pace over many years was changing me from a “scholar” into “a doer”. I realized that I had not only accepted but embraced the “star performer” competition, proud of my achievements and long work hours (and then being expected, and expecting myself, to “achieve even more”). I doubt I can truly achieve “slow”, but I resolve to change my attitude to work and time.
Questions
How much do you feel there is a focus on “productivity, efficiency and competition” at our institution? Is it possible (or even desirable) to “resist” it? Are there realistic steps we can take in that direction?
Some of my Praxis colleagues will recall a memorable remark by Fr. Brian Muzás (Diplomacy and International Relations) on our approach to teaching: “we are microwaving when we want to be slow-roasting”. Given the demands to “cover the material” (especially in view of cumulative course requirements), what can we do to do more “slow-roasting” and less “microwaving”?
Is the approach of teaching as narration a useful one (can you think of examples from your own teaching?). How does this relate to “the way of heritage”?
Collegiality, community and collaboration are cornerstones of our Praxis program, but are these qualities indeed declining in academia generally? How can we help to foster them?