![]() Finally, a questioner from outside the history department, but self-professedly linked to the current known as Postcolonial Studies, raised his hand. The subject was colonial India and British rule there, and it became clear that the most pressing question that bothered people in the room was the nature of the candidate’s own identity. Archives and documents were not even mentioned. The questions began, and it was immediately clear that they were entirely different from those in a British seminar room. A smoker, he had clearly not read what a standard guide to job-talks suggests: «Try to be in good physical condition long-distance running or some other types of stamina-development would probably be good preparation for this challenging stage of the search» (Thomas 1989: 322). Sipping water, the candidate was clearly relieved at his own performance and was now somewhat off-guard. The applause was generous, and the time eventually came for questions and answers. But in this case the use of the written text was deft, and eye-contact with the audience was surprisingly good. (British academics who wish to show their familiarity with the US after having spent some time in the country will often make gratuitous references to baseball, or use what they imagine are deep American expressions such as: «That’s the way the cookie crumbles», or «That’s the good news now here’s the bad news»). This, as much as his accent, marked him out not only as someone who came from the other side of the Atlantic, but as one who had been wholly trained there. The speaker stood at a podium as he spoke, and used a text to read from, which Americans often prefer not to do as it suggests they do not quite master their materials. There was proper shamanistic ritual in the use of Power Point. It was hard for an outsider even to gauge the depth of the waters.ĢIn the event, the actual performance was very polished. It was clear that even a good performance might not suffice to get him through. There was clearly a certain amount of scepticism in the air about him. The candidate was a younger man, trained in the United Kingdom. But the case I am about to describe belonged to the other, more common, category. I was once present when, on account of the candidate’s alleged status, the puissance invitante was the President of the university and the usual budgetary restrictions were thrown to the winds. The talk itself is surrounded by all sorts of other rituals: breakfast, lunch and dinner meetings with individuals or small groups (the Quadrangle Club at the University of Chicago is fascinating as an ethnographic site from this point of view, suggesting that David Lodge was more reporter than satirist) short conversations with graduate students en brochette appointments for the candidate with deans and provosts a reception or two with wine and cheese and a dinner the quality of which will often depend on the perceived importance of the candidate. On such occasions, the job-talk is largely a formality and will often be quite poorly attended because its outcome is already known, unless of course the candidate manages to disgrace himself beyond all measure. The first, and statistically less common, one is when there is a «target-of-opportunity» search, which is when the host university is in fact courting the candidate. ![]() The American (and Canadian) «job-talk» normally is a part of a larger ritual. ![]() At the risk of producing ennui, let me briefly summarize my sense of how these work. These are peculiar affairs, largely unknown on the other side of the Atlantic, although they have now begun to penetrate England on the rare occasion, in places like Brighton they are still unheard of though for the most part in Paris, Oxford or Lisbon (or for that matter Delhi or Chennai). Some years ago, while at an American university, I attended a «job-talk» a lecture which, though intended above all for members of a department that is seeking to recruit someone, is open to the public at large. ![]() 1Let me begin with an extended anecdote that will serve here as a form of casual ethnography. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |