A Storm in 1 Cup

Wherein our intrepid blogger will attempt to link coporaphilia, the human genome project, new theories of English linguistic origins, core shamanism and the failure of the Tertiary education system into a single cohesive treatise.

Connoisseurs, raconteurs, and provocateurs all!

The point of origin for this scintillating adventure into cyber extroversion was with my reviewing a fantastic site called funnyexamanswers.com . As a teacher, I could not help but weep as I read the array of stunningly clueless answers. I recommend all and sundry to go and view the site. But one essay answer seriously concerned me. And believe it or not, it was not due to the material related therein.

The essay in question is the one shown above with this blog. It is a film review, and at a guess, I would say is a film review essay from University. The film review is of the stunningly grotesque and abhorrent Internet meme '2 Girls 1 Cup' which spawned so much popularity from a plethora of people uploading their responses of shock and revulsion onto YouTube. The meme itself is difficult to find due to its extremely ...libertine nature. But then, coporophilia is likely to offend!

The gentleman involved seems to have decided to, as a film review essay, submit his deconstruction of the infamous '2 Girls 1 Cup'. And, I have to say, his use of language, his understanding of Freudian symbolism and his ability to 'mind wank' at a sophisticated level is pretty impressive. Impressive enough for a credit (if he was a first year student) , impressive enough for a pass at least.

For example, here is a brief transcript of said essay, observe:

In the masterful modern work 2girls1cup, the feminist genre is reexamined through a series of reversals of expectations. The prevalent ideologies of our culture are filtered through the lens of the pornographic genre - and, in true morder form - the work tends to raise more questions than it answers.

And:

The first image with the two primary characters (who, for the sake of this reading, I will consider to be the “2girls that are referred to in the title_ is seemingly innocuous - the cross-cultural, lesbian interaction defines the equal-rights(both feminine and racial) within the genre of pornography.

The gentle background music lulls the audience to sleep, and the timely but gradual change into the next shot at :11 goes by largely unnoticed by the audience. The eyes are immediately drawn to the “Cup” (also presumed to be that mentioned in the title) the inversion of the phallus and perhaps one of the most overarching symbols for feminine spirituality and sexuality in antiquity.

However, what is not impressive, in stark comparison to the colourful but erudite exam, is the unintelligible squawking of the marker. His/her comments are barely legible and tend to be reduced to monosyllabic grunts such as "Huh?" or even "????" The final comment is a frightening indictment upon our tertiary institutions:

"This material is Not apropriate [note the spelling of "appropriate"] for class! [class is struck through] Anyone!! See Me 0%"

Now, if I were to unpack this essay and marker's comments together as a micro-text, I would find something extremely alarming. For I see here an extremely smart person (I must admit to presuming it is a 'he' simply because it's about porn and lets face it handing in a film review essay on something like '2 Girls 1 Cup' has 19 year old male adolescent written all over it!) who is bored with their class, and feels confident in comparing his academic abilities with his lecturers and markers. His essay has all the hallmarks of someone who is simultaneously mocking the teaching staff, whilst bragging about his intellect and ability to give them exactly what they require for their essays, albeit on his terms.

In comparison, the lecturer simply can not keep up. He/she does not even seem to realise that they are the butt of this student's joke! They are humourless and (even worse) incapable of spelling. This essay is a text which highlights the irrelevance of the teacher, and the disillusioned nature of the student who is bored and unstimulated, and is consequently failing due to his inability to not tow the line.

Which got me to thinking about Stephen Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British. Stephen Oppenheimer is an expert in human genetics and has written plenty of books on the topic including The Origins of the British and Out of Eden, and The Real Eve. He has transgressed an academic commandment however, by blending two disciplines together. And it is a serious transgression too for he blends a science discipline with a humanities discipline causing much flapping of arms and outcries of consternation. You see, Stephen Oppenheimer is an expert in synthesising vast amounts of DNA and comparing them to our known theories about history, or in this case, language.

Enter Geoffrey Sampson, linguist and above mentioned arm flapper. It appears that Geoffrey is somewhat annoyed that Oppenheimer would dare step in on his turf so to speak. It would appear that Geoffrey is annoyed by Oppenheimer's audacity to, god forbid, have an original thought that might break the mould. Geoffrey Sampson assumes the now familiar patronising smug tone associated with all academic professionals who are scaring others away from their College Chair. Observe:

Part of the problem is that when Oppenheimer quotes research on linguistic analysis, instead of using the work of people knowledgeable about language he depends heavily on ill-informed studies of language by geneticists. Oppenheimer repeated cites as authoritative a 2003 paper by Peter Forster and Alfred Toth, which to a professional linguist reads as an embarrassment rather than a serious scientific contribution. Rather than justify this statement here, let me simply refer to an online critique by my late, much-missed colleague Larry Trask. (See also his follow-up.) Larry summarizes his view by saying that Forster and Toth “have committed every schoolboy howler I can think of”. Strong words, but justified in my view.

What is intriguing though, is that Oppenheimer's arguments do not rely upon these 'embarrassments', so why bother even mentioning them? But the answer is simple enough: To keep the status quo. To keep such up-starts like Forster and Toth and Oppenheimer in their place. Whilst at the same time displaying once again, an appalling lack of scholarship in the process. For example, Geoffrey Sampson claims at the end of his review that Oppenheimer's theory is simply 'not true'. I don't know about you, but bloody-minded assertion always convinces me! After quibbling over irrelevant points regarding Oppenheimer's supporting arguments, he demonstrates how he is totally incapable of actually addressing Oppenheimer's core theories as he is completely unable to understand anything which isn't linguistics. In fact Geoffrey Sampson seems to have difficulty understanding maps in their relation to genetics! He does seem to have time to reveal his true issue of contention, which is:

(he was a career paediatrician, and has turned to this stuff [which is Sampson's way of saying Genetic research and it's consequences on our understanding of prehistory and linguistics] on a hobby basis).

That's right, Oppenheimer is guilty. GUILTY! He is guilty of not having followed the correct protocols and toadying up to the right people. He is guilty of having become an expert in a field of interest outside of the universities' authority! He then compounds his sin by blending it with another field without asking the gurus of that discipline for their blessing. In short Oppenheimer is guilty of being a maverick.

There is a grand history of dusty academics putting down our maverick intelligentsia. For instance, Michael Harner, and Peter Kingsley have both fallen into disrepute amongst academic circles. Michael Harner was an outstanding anthropologist, and Peter Kingsley a scholar on ancient Greece. Were their theories and arguments seriously flawed, or indeed poorly expressed? Far from it, Peter Kingsley and Michael Harner merely seem to have transgressed the golden rule of not becoming 'eccentric', -of starting to actually believe in their own theories. It appears that certainty is a virtue in academic circles but not without an escape clause of detached irony. Peter Kingsley whose theories regarding the shamanic roots of Grecian logic via Parmenides, and Michael Harner who's anthropology led him to take up core shamanism (a synthesis of 'core' beliefs by a plethora of shamanic cultures, -hence the name) have led to an embarrassed expunging of their academic works as they are type-cast into the marginalised role of 'crazy-nutter'.

Geoffrey Sampson's response to Steven Oppenheimer's book, and the marker's response to the less than wholesome essay above, got me thinking about my own experience at University. And of things nearly EVERYONE I ever talked to said about their experiences of University.

It is a story that sort of follows these lines:

Once upon a time there was a young high school student who had heard nothing but fabulous things about University. He had heard that University was a melting pot of knowledge, that University was an institution where wisdom was explored and free thought was revered. And then the newly graduated school leaver entered this mythical realm, to discover that it wasn't the nirvana he first thought it was. Where he expected to meet lecturer's pondering the meaty topics of philosophy or literature, he found uninspiring teachers, whose grip on academic topics was superficial at best. Where he expected profound debate he saw bureaucratic squabbling and blatant currying for favour by undergraduates. Where were the discussions regarding literary theory and philosophical quandaries? As he slowly realised that his teachers were far from the demi-gods of wisdom that he hoped for, he noticed something else too. That all the smart students, all the students who had ideas about Universities and easily grasped the material were becoming disillusioned with this "nirvana" and were leaving it for greener pastures, somewhere where they're skills would be acknowledged and they could earn a wage. Meanwhile, the students who were plodding along and said all the right things to all the right people, the students who were not intimidating to the professors and doctors rose in the ranks of students and were, very soon, hired by the staff.

This may sound like the hard-done-by whingeing of a university student who dropped out and came to no good. But unfortunately such an assumption would be wrong. Having seen the writing on the wall very early on the piece, I capitulated to the system, declared that 2+2=5, completed what degree's I needed to get in order to have a career of my choosing, and then got the hell out of the system. I can now say that I am a well-read, extremely intelligent person with a formidable vocabulary, in spite of my education.

And I am not alone. In 2000, the Association for Institutional Research and Association for the Study of Higher Education commissioned a study which was published under the name Higher Education. In it is the following quote:

So often are students bored by uninspired teaching or disenchanted by badly taught material. While university lecturers are undoubtedly knowledgeable, they are totally untrained and unexamined in the art of communication.

The student of my story, feeling uninspired and disenchanted more than likely left University. Maybe he was failed for having a humourless lecturer who couldn't cope with a film review about pornography. Either way, the student probably left and that was the end of the story... until recently.

For we no longer live in an age where the University holds the monopoly on knowledge. We are living in a wondrous age where the Internet has risen like a many headed Scylla to the Universities' Charybdis. Once upon a time such maverick thinkers who were bored and brilliant and flouted the system would have left, disgraced, and branded a 'drop out', or a 'crazy-nutter.' But the Internet now is promising a new anarchic method for such people to make a living and influence our society with their ideas. Mavericks are learning to express their opinions in a new medium which has left the Universities reeling. And they are becoming a force to be reckoned with. While the lecturer's were guarding the gate to wisdom, these mavericks hacked a way in through a back door, and suddenly, the universities are having to consider these people's theories. Of course this results in a lot of embarrassed chuckling behind hands in an 'oh ...him' kind of way. But unlike before, the Internet makes such displays very VERY public.

And the public is on the mavericks' side. I truly believe, at least in the realm of the Humanities,) that Universities need to seriously reconsider their approach to knowledge, lest they be surpassed by the culture of knowledge and debate that is flourishing unrestrained on the Internet, threatening to make them redundant.

It is an extremely interesting period in time for many reasons, but I look forward to a day where the Universities will need to drastically alter their methods or find themselves usurped and surpassed, not by their students, but by the 'drop outs' who found a back door via the Internet!

2 Girls 1 Cup Film Review at: funnyexamanswers.com
S., Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British, A Genetic Detective Story, Constable and Robinson: 2006.
G., Samson, Stephen Oppenheimer and the Language Prehistory of Britain, http://www.grsampson.net/QOppenheimer.html
M., Harner, The Way of the Shaman, Harper SanFrancisco: 1990.
P., Kingsley, Reality, The Golden Sufi Centre Publishing: 2003.
J.C. Smart, W.G. Tierney, Higher Education, Association for Institutional Research and Association for the Study of Higher Education, Springer: 2000.

coporaphilia, 2 Girls 1 Cup, Core Shamanism, Michael Harner, Parmenides, The Golden Sufi Center, Social Critique, Tertiary Education, Stephen Oppenheimer, The Human Genome Project, Linguistics, Failure of the universities. Smart students dropping out, Higher Education, Prehistory, Britain