More on the Hunter posting

[Bruce A. McClelland]

Having just printed off eleven pages of listserv responses to the Hunter
job posting, I will assume that my 120 roubles are being tossed in a little
late. Nevertheless.

I guess what surprises me, sitting here in my Moscow office with one of
those non-academic jobs that might be proffered as an example of what is
possible outside of the World of Slavic Departments, is that the Hunter
announcement was perceived as being so restrictive. In fact, the original
posting was worded as to provide a significant amount of flexibility, and
the only "difficult" requirement is that the candidate be able to teach in
both Russian and English. Certainly the requirements of a Ph.D. in hand,
native-like command of Russian, and a specialization in one [of three!]
areas cannot by themselves be considered unique or even symptomatic of some
dreadful condition affecting the field. Knowledge of a second Slavic
language certainly shouldn't be considered some sort of unfair requirement,
especially insofar as knowledge of a Slavic language outside of Russian is
mandatory for a Ph.D. at several universities.

What, then, is the problem? Teaching "all levels" (vague enough) in both
Russian and English? While such a requirement might have been unreasonable
six years ago, when it was more difficult to expect graduate students to
have spent a year or so in Russia, living here now seems to be an implicit
requirement for the field. And where once upon a time I might have
disagreed with such a requirement, it is certainly indisputable that in my
own case, living (and working) here for ten months now has given me a much
stronger sense of the language and the culture that I have been studying on
and off since 1964, than I have ever gotten from all the grammar and
conversation courses I have taken in the many years since. In fact, I
sometimes have to wonder how I could have ever claimed to know anything
about this country/culture without having lived here.

On another matter related to the discussion, and one to which I am somewhat
attuned, namely preparing oneself for a job outside of academia: It is true
that there are such jobs, careers even, and that they provide a different
set of rewards from the Academy. While you don't get your summers off, and
you don't get paid to talk to young people who are paying to listen to you,
you do occasionally get the other perks that have been mentioned, including
in some cases the possibility of working in Russia or Eastern Europe, which
is now a much different place and still offers both a sense of adventure
and a sense that you are really making a contribution. (Whether you need a
doctorate for these other jobs, however, is disputable, though it doesn't
hurt.)

Having lived most of my life only peripherally associated with
universities, and most of that time as a student of one sort or another, I
can say that outside of academic life, the possibilities for a certain type
of discourse, of that Neoplatonic sort envisioned as possible only inside a
"free and ordered space" such as a quadrangle, are virtually impossible.
The true shame, for those of us who value that type of discourse above
other types of labor, is not simply that American shortsightedness is
resulting in the centripetal spiral of Slavistics, but also that the value
of that discourse is no longer perceived in general. Urging people into the
commercial (or non-commercial, even more ridiculous "public sector") world
strikes me as a capitulation to the very forces that brought us to this
point of dismay to begin with.

Bruce McClelland
Director, Internet Programs
IREX/Moscow