Apparently I have demonstrated my ‘misrecognition’ (1 October). That’s an interesting word. My Shorter Oxford does not recognise it, and Betty Kirkpatrick missed it when editing my beloved Chambers. This may account in part for my failure to grasp the import of Joe Crawford’s statement: ‘Mr Sinclair’s article demonstrates his own misrecognition of his role in the struggle to win the monopoly over the legitimate right to define reality’. Wow! Do I really have such a role? Perhaps that’s why I am ‘somewhat pompous’, as Joe later points out.
But one must not be too hard on dear Joe who, he tells us, lives in ‘an agonistic social world where the contests and struggles over status and power are pitiless and relentless’. And here I was, thinking he lived in the safety and seclusion of an ivory tower.
Apparently, my ‘principal misunderstanding’ is that I am ‘not aware (as most people are not) of the reasons why he thinks in ‘terms’ that have a strong ‘economic’ foundation, while at the same time mistakenly thinking that journalism and academia have all that much in common’. And that: ‘…we need to understand the fact that academics and journalists come from opposing places on the two vectors – economic capital running vertically and cultural capital cutting through it horizontally’.
Well, at least it is not the case that never the twain vectors shall meet. It would seem Scottish Review is that meeting place – where an academic such as Joe Crawford can risk sullying his quill to enlighten a pompous journalist.
It is a pity that Joe Crawford so patently failed to grasp the point of my piece: that academia is too provider-centric (if I may be excused some management-speak) and I notice that, while he refers to Bourdieu and Marx, he makes no mention of his students and their place in ‘the struggle to win the monopoly’.
I pointed out how limited my academic experience was, and I rather expected academics would have spotted that I was referring to a former polytechnic which at that time was trying desperately to be a ‘real’ university while carrying on vocational training. Perhaps Mr Crawford could tell us whether a university is really the best place to carry out vocational training since, as he would have it, economic capital is at right angles to cultural capital.
Bernie Cohen (1 October) found my article ‘substandard and irresponsible’ and ‘founded on weak evidence’. He adds: ‘Whether its weaknesses are a genuine reflection of the academic world involved in teaching journalism I cannot say’. You cannot say fairer than that, Bernie.
Jill Stephenson’s response (1 October), on the other hand, does address the effect on students of compressing a four-year degree course into three years, but claims it would be ‘at the expense of reducing the amount of time available for students to earn the wherewithal to enable them to study’. Many of the students I know find it difficult to earn enough to survive the long holiday, never mind putting cash aside for the rest of the year. My fourth daughter, who left school last year, has opted to take up full-time employment while pursuing her degree with the Open University.
Jill Stephenson says: ‘I think that Bill Sinclair and I are talking about different things. Perhaps we are talking past each other’. She adds: ‘Journalism is perhaps a subject in which people can be trained. One does not train students in an academic subject…’
I’ll buy that, Jill. As I might have quoted when working on the Sun: Different strokes for different folks.
Bill Sinclair
Jill Stephenson’s letter (3 October) seems a little trite. I could reduce the argument about good HR professionals to words of fewer syllables if she wants.
Organisations only succeed if the people in the organisation succeed. The HR function is there to enable that. I’m not sure that I can make that any easier for an educated person to understand. I’m sorry she had a bad experience – that shouldn’t happen, which is something I thought I made clear in my letter. Or was antithesis a word too far for her? I do note, however, that she ducked my point about making sweeping generalisations from limited data.
There is a very real debate to be had about HR, and where it should sit in any organisation, public or private. Easy soundbites and shallow workings don’t help advance that debate.
Simon Smith
I agree with Alex Bell (3 October) that democracy is in danger, but his solution – replace Westminster with Holyrood – is laughable. Our representatives’ foibles are much the same no matter where they sit: serve themselves and their families and friends rather than the public; make promises they do not keep; misuse public money. And they will continue to behave in this way for as long as our participation is limited to voting in elections.
Democracy could be improved if the electorate had the authority to (1) recall their representatives at all levels, (2) introduce legislation, and (3) amend/cancel existing legislation. The citizens of Switzerland can do all of this.
Seumas Graham
A spokesman said: ‘This was an expense to ensure that the first minister was appropriately attired for the black tie event. When brought to his attention, the first minister ensured that the Scottish Government was reimbursed.’ (The italics are mine.)
Since when was it considered one is appropriately attired to turn up to a black tie event looking like Harry Lauder?
James McNie
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
