I am reading DeLanda and Deleuze because I’ll might use the idea of “assemblages” to analyse interactive documentaries. I know that if I use such concept I will have to defend the way I use it – to be inspired by it is not enough. This is what I find very difficult in PhD writing: the game is to use theory and to persuade through it. This is an exercise of rhetoric not an exercise of becoming. At no point one has to be vague. One has to constantly be sure and directive. One is supposed to be the leader… but leader of what? I see my PhD as an exploration, as a trip that counts more than the arrival. I find it particularly difficult to fake an assertive style which is not mine.
The more I think about it the more I see the PhD as a ritual of passage. It has to be difficult. It has to be painful. It has to be absurd and not questionable. This is the tribal way to create clans and elites…
But I do not want to be part of an elite. I want to be part of a debate and I want this debate to be open to everybody – especially people outside of academia.
Isn’t it strange that academia, where some people are so bright that they can re-think the world anew and foresee the future, is probably the more ritualistic and archaic place that one can imagine?
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 4th, 2010