Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Simeon Gordon Professor Feldman ENC 1101 19 September 2022 I Can Write About That? Many have thought for decades that intellectual thoughts are solely on the likes of Shakespeare, Plato, or Steven Hawking. They say that school readings and essays should be on these same writings and information because they encourage “intellectual thoughts” for the students learning about them. These same individuals brush away the notion of focusing on more personal subjects or interests such as relationships, hobbies, music, possessions, and other topics because they don’t prioritize the idea of becoming more scholarly and should be reserved for casual small talk or home. Gerald Graff, the author of the essay “Hidden Intellectualism,” disagrees. Graff writes about how he has been caught between these two seemingly separate worlds of dwelling on classical teachings and thinking on the “less intellectual” matters. Graff advocates for the idea that, while schools and universities have been reserved for more psychologically stimulating topics for many years, they should allow and even reassure the students to think, read, and write about personal interests because they have intellectual value. Many people tend to assume that contemplating the deeper meanings of Shakespeare's plays, delving into the studies of the known universe, and writing on the newest scientific breakthrough will allow one’s mind to ascend to a higher plane of intellectualism. They may also come to the conclusion that conversing or writing about the seemingly simplistic hobbies we all enjoy in our day-to-day lives will hinder us from doing so. They may misinterpret the quote given by Charlotte Mason “...if we want to know how far a school provides intellectual sustenance for its scholars, we may ask to see the list of books in reading during the current term” by believing that she is only affirming the reading and conversation of classical, scientific, or “real” books. Graff refutes this by insisting that “Real intellectuals [can] turn any subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest subject,” and that “...no necessary connection has ever been established between any text or subject and the educational depth and weight of the discussion it can generate." In other words, he is saying that the cerebral depth of the reading material or conversation isn’t the determining factor as to if it holds intellectual value. On the one hand, many schools seem to keep the thoughts of cars, sports, and other social subjects separated from the seemingly higher thoughts of classic novels and formulas. Graff believes that the two bisections blend into each other more than originally thought. He claims that “The real intellectual world, the one that existed in the big world beyond school, is organized very much like the world of team sports, with rival texts, rival interpretations of texts, rival theories of why they should be read and taught, and elaborate team competitions in which ‘fans’ of writers, intellectual systems, methodologies, and -isms contend against each other.” When Graff came to this realization, that the two worlds that we have been taught to think are completely separate from each other are very much alike, he stated “I can’t blame my schools for failing to make intellectual culture resemble the Super Bowl, but I do fault them for failing to learn anything from [sports and entertainment] about how to exploit its gamelike element and turn it into arresting public spectacle that might have more successfully competed for my youthful attention.” In essence, Graff is saying that if schools realized that the world outside of them was more like sports than traditional reading and writing, it would be foolish to only focus on reading weighty books full of new words, unfamiliar figures from the 18th century, and long essays. The two separate halves of life thought to be isolated from one another now seem to intersect more than ever. How do these two planes intersect in a way that benefits intellectualism though? College professor Ned Laff has the answer. Ned states that to develop the students’ desire and ability to write on a more intellectual level, “The challenge is not to exploit the students’ non-academic interests but to get them to see it through academic eyes.” He is suggesting that schools don’t try to block out the thought of personal interests but rather guide it in such a way that it enriches the minds of the students and improves their reading, writing, and intellectual conversing skills. However, the depth of classic novels and informational books is not to be forgotten. Though Graff fully supports the claim that schools should allow students to focus on other topics, he is not entirely dismissing the need for higher reading and writing. He himself states that “Students do need to read models of intellectually challenging writing…if they are to become intellectuals themselves.” Graff believes that all reading, writing, and conversing, are intellectually beneficial if done in an appropriate manner and setting. In conclusion, Graff has implied through various examples in his essay that if he would have been allowed to write about the topics he had been interested in at the time of his schooling, he would have developed a love for reading classical and informational books easier. He emphasized the importance of having the freedom to write, read, and talk about what interests us as a pathway into deeper topics as long as they are written, read, and talked about in an intelligent manner. He points out that the division between school and outside interests is not as big as one would first think, with life after school resembling a team sport with battling opinions and beliefs. As Graff concludes his essay, he emphasizes that he would “[Choose] the student anytime who writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis on an issue in Source over the student who writes a lifeless explication of Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology.” With that final statement, he indicates that the most simple of topics can often be the most intellectual.