Being free without a license

How useful are academic qualifications when it comes to actually solving the problems on the ground? I'm talking about academics in general and the problem of declining English-language proficiency in Malaysia in an age where English has become the medium for science, math, technology and just about everything else. It's a chicken and egg situation : If you're not an academic, what you say must be not valid, and is unsubstantiated and its insignificance highlighted by the fact that it's merely anecdotal evidence. If you become an academic, the years of having to conform to the rules of academia in collecting, analysing and interpreting information ends up muddling the distinction between what is your insight and awareness, thus, practical and applicable versus what is the sum of the addition of other people's ideas and opinions.

Have you ever realized though, how in writing an essay for academic purpose, half of the word count is attributed to quotes and annotations? It seems that an opinion can only be valid if it is based on evidence from an existing and accepted thought or opinion. Then how is one to remain fresh? How is one to separate and validate one's own opinion from the conglomerate of third party observation, information and opinions?

The years that it takes, the eating, breathing and drinking a certain code and environment en route to becoming an academic alters the intellectual DNA of a person. It is a widely held belief that an academic route makes the mind sharper, more brilliant and more superior. But how many academics really drive the direction of society and creativity? The divide between the world of the academics and the realities of society at large is so huge - no wonder the term, ivory tower.

So, it begs the question : In order to make a significant shift in thinking, does one need to first be an academic? But how can one still retain that fresh, creative thinking after a process of adding and quoting and referencing and validating others' opinions over yours? Who would want to be unconformist in an area notorious for its conformity by suggesting a revolutionary-type theory? If the theory catches on with enough peer support with the correct timing and momentum, it becomes a valid opinion that might be able to ride the wave against the current of objection and counter-argument by other academics. If it doesn't, all is wasted. Then one is labelled with negative opinions. If one had to go through academia just to be shot in the foot, one might as well spend the same amount of energy being a Dale Carnegie type.

When resorting to writing a paper with an opinion, in order to present at a conference, it cannot escape the structure and decorum conference papers must adhere to. Such a voice is not the most appealing to the general public - the same public one is supposed to benefit by being an academic.

There will be mavericks - those who have successfully married academic achievement with what seems like rogue behaviour. And if the stars and planets are aligned perfectly, you win a Nobel prize.

Can we pursue and make change without the stamp of approval from academia? Is it worth being a Dale Carnegie instead of being a paper-chaser? And especially so, can we pursue and make change from within ourselves, from within the context of the circumstances we find ourselves in amidst our very own society, instead of pursuing the lingua franca of those in ivory towers in order to get permission to make those changes?

The same way becoming a self-made millionaire belies a blueprint that has been altered through the course of time, becoming an academic also changes the core person that embarked on that journey. Maybe at first it seemed like the most rational thing to do, to exploit the scholastic aptitude one innately possesses and to benefit from the status and luxuries an academic life can offer. And 7 to 10 years later, the person who lived in the shadows of society behind the shiny shade of ivory towers eventually find themselves a prisoner of their own cleverness. And this is my argument against pursuing an academic route all these years.

It is possible to argue that in truth, i simply do not possess the capacity for graduate and doctorate studies - that i simply do not possess the faculties of designing, observing, collecting empirical evidence, referencing and interviewing and adding and adding knowledge to oneself or the reading skills to deal with tonnes of dry, academic reading and their jargon and semantics. And add to that the lack of discipline of denying oneself the freedom of partying as a young person, being employed in a diverse selection of jobs in the open market, living frugally and being dutiful in meeting budgets and assignments and protocol. I do not deny the possibility of all of the above.

At soon-to-be 32, I have managed to convince myself that whatever the path we have chosen to take in order to achieve whatever we set out to achieve - the journey in itself alters us permanently. That has always been my argument against fatalistic people like my father who believe that money, duty and narrowly-defined traditional responsibilities have to come first while he puts his dreams away in a lockbox. As we know by now, my father expired before he could even find the map he stowed away which showed him back to the place he put the key for his lockbox!

I believe that putting our dreams and hopes away makes us into that person, someone who is not someone we wanted to be, the same way pursuing our dreams makes us that person we dream about. I think, therefore, the Universe is very neutral about our choices; It neither condemns nor celebrates our choices, which gives a new meaning to the personal responsibility of Freewill.

I grew up in a society which demands academic endorsement to validate any opinion. A society that created in itself the loophole for doctored endorsements and a mushrooming of paper mills to certify anything under the son. For over a decade and a half, throughout times which seemed to make the choice of pursuing an academic route even more difficult and necessary at the same time, I had battled with the arguments for and being neutral about the necessity to validate myself through academic endorsements. What makes the decision harder was the fact that I knew, even at the most modest estimates, that I would be able to hack it, aptitude wise.

But Krishnamurthi was spot-on when he questioned why we pursue our degrees so. It is either for material or intellectual ambition. It is for the ego, the self-identity which can be found and strengthened by such endorsements. It might sound like I am anti-academia, but no. I think the pursuit of knowledge in itself for the sake of itself is perfectly fine. But along the way, the temptation to escape into the shrouds created by the additive process of information and knowledge and to cocoon ourself in an ivory tower overcomes a person, overtakes the freshness of mind that one first entered with, over-ridden by the general ambition of society at large as we wear out our own innocence and naivete within the structure of academia.

So this is my declaration. This is my acceptance. That i do not need to seek acceptance and validation for my opinions. It was my own demons seeking recognition and face. It was my own demons telling me my validation and endorsement can only come from putting my energy and creativity on hold and pursuing an academic route to its end.