42 means you barely passed.

Now that I have about fifty psychology students to take care of, I may claim myself to have become something like a tutor. How exciting! As a friend put it: It’s exciting to have people’s futures in your hands. Apparently, I do.

Initially, I’ve been excited to be able to share some of my pseudo-professional knowledge and likewise learn from what young and fresh people’s minds have to offer. And then…

…disillusionment set in.

I’ll tell you how this happened. I got a bunch of papers to mark. So far, so good. Until I started reading. Some of my students are bright, potential researchers. Others have turned my inherent positive attitude upside down. Once you read reports lacking the most basic language skills, not to mention a lack of logic, you sit there frustrated and disillusioned, thinking about anything that may cheer you up.

42 means you barely passed.

When I used to study, I needed a 60 to pass. Anyways, apart from the limited academic standards which, as I learned, are common standard in undergraduate education in the UK, getting a 42 appears to be more difficult than you might have guessed.

Fortunately, my kids have me. They will pass. And I plan to teach them how to get their methods right. And their references. And their error bar charts. (Hopefully this story will find an end once they hand in their next reports.)

In need of a shrink?

Let me tell you about my latest visit to the shrink – or rather, to the Sherwood Institute which specializes in breeding shrinks.

It is an atmospheric place with lots of cozy couches, reminiscent of classical psychoanalysis. It houses a fireplace and it is located in an antique British building, which is in no way inferior to Freud’s eventual London residence. The natives of that place appear to blend in with the scenery, adding up to its distinctive and impressively familiar appeal. As a visitor you are welcomed by open faces, attentive and courteous, munificent with hospitality.

The intern library, situated in subterranean cellars, does not even shy away from presenting with specialist literature on spiritualism.

Training is offered in different forms of psychotherapy and counseling, including gestalt, person-centered, cognitive-behavioral and integrative psychotherapy, based on an assemblage of professional practice and academic research.

As is the case with other European countries, turning into a shrink comes at a cost in the UK. Inevitably this cost is not trivial. Apart from pecuniary costs, these costs extend to psychological costs and sacrifices on behalf of the future shrink.

Becoming a psychologist, becoming a therapist, is not merely a decision. It is a way of life. It is an ideology, which does not ask for a decision to adopt it, but for a fluid development to embrace it. How else could a person consent to listening empathically to a stranger pouring out his heart, disclosing his greatest fears and desires, dormant up to then, offering his absolute attention and giving away his professional and most humane aid?

The story does not end at realizing altruistic ideals. Potentially even more substantial is the innate need to understand how the human mind works. For a psychologist it is indispensable to uncover how his own mind works, why he thinks the way he thinks and why he feels what he feels. The psychologists’ altruism is nourished by his egoism. In fact, there may be a little narcissist hiding in a psychologist which becomes transferred to the person who seeks his professional help.

Ergo a shrink needs a shrink. Correspondingly, a therapists’ education in the UK entails seeing a therapist. As obvious as this may seem at first glance, it appears less so when compared to standard practice in Germany.

Apparently, only by better understanding himself can the psychologist progress towards understanding the other.

Psychology appears as a journey which necessitates the willingness to open up. The greatest challenge is self-reflection.

To work or not to work - The power of procrastination

Permanent head damage inevitably leads to the PhD‘s favorite pastime activity: Procrastination. If you take a closer look you may wonder whether “pastime” really belongs in that sentence. Not necessarily.

Sometimes it does take quite some effort to bring yourself back to focus. Sometimes you’ll be desperate for coming up with important stuff such as doing your laundry or washing the dishes, all for the purpose of delaying anything that has the slightest bit to do with your project. You may feel like a cat that apprehends water anxiously, with a fierce look in its eyes and its fur and tail erect.

How do you persuade yourself to get back to business?

Take an essential break. Do something for your body. Call your mother. Procrastination is essential to getting back to normal, to reverse the supposed permanent head damage. Get back to a state of mediocrity for once.

But bear in mind your deadlines! It doesn’t seem to be the smartest thing to do to wasting the evening away with everyday profanities when you know that the next morning you need to be sophisticated again. This does not mean that I don’t appreciate improvisation. In fact I’m a big fan of it. Instead, even improvisation must be grounded upon something more than merely speaking your mind. If you want to improvise, you must mentally prepare yourself for doing that. You must set the stage for the act of acting, actually. Don’t merely rely on your rhetorical skills in charming the pants off your audience. Charisma is indispensable, but it won’t necessarily do the job, particularly when you’re faced with an audience that you cannot really predict. Particularly when it’s an audience that doesn’t consist of males only.

So there’s nothing left to do but to put yourself in the adequate state of mind for both delivering sophisticated results and improvising where necessary.

Now I need to come up with some more essential household choires. 

PhD = permanent head damage

So what is a PhD, actually?

I asked a like-minded friend and his answer was: Didn’t you know that PhD stands for permanent head damage?

Now when I listen to other friends’ accounts, I learn about all the academic blackouts they’ve experienced. Once I’m in the office, I merely have to look at their faces to realize that something weird’s happening in those brains. It goes from laborious deliberation to Eureka moments, sometimes followed by an apparent loss of focus, so that the initial ingenious idea is gone with the wind.

Constant focus, or the inveterate search for it, may lead to a vacuum, ensuing in a state of hollowness. To overcome this, PhDs will be desperate to find distraction. Coffee breaks seem appropriate. They, however, may lead to symptoms traditionally associated with addictions… And there we go again, with the mind wandering off.  

Sometimes you’ve got to be silly in order not to lose your head.

Welcome to PhD prison

Imprisonment is the deprivation of freedom. You are deprived of freedom when you cannot do what you want to do. If you cannot take a weekend off because you have to work, you are deprived of your freedom. When the reason for this is your PhD work, you are kindly welcomed to PhD prison, the place to be.

As a PhD student, you’re supposed to love the research you’re doing. You’re supposed to be absolutely enthusiastic about your literature, your participants and your stats. But guess what: That’s just one side of the coin. Once you’re involved in producing output, the whole process of accumulating your data and information can become somewhat of a hassle. Not only do you try to put together the required data, you’ll find yourself trying hard to make sense of it, to structure and organize it and to present it in a comprehensive fashion. In either of these stages, it can happen – indeed it may be inevitable – that you get stuck. Once you get stuck, there is little chance for you to break free even if it’s just for a tiny break because your conscientiousness won’t let you.

I fell victim to this tragic fate. Once I finished a literature review on cybersex addiction, I started off doing the same for online gaming addictions. Doing this reinforced me dwelling on my own addictions, CCC. Coffee, cake and cigarettes are the way to go when you need to digest 60 studies and put them into one coherent, concise and comprehensive piece of academic work within a week. And it makes you get through those busy Sundays, in which you’re desperate to fight the effects of last night’s entertainments while forcing your brain to work to its (semi-)fullest capacity. The fruits of this imprisonment are publications in peer-reviewed journals. Yeah, baby! This may be worth sacrificing a weekend. By the time of official publication I may be a doctor… That’s as scary as it can get.

In the end, PhD prison demarcates the victory of the super-ego over the Id. And I am as bold as to claim that the PhD’s super-ego is inevitably superior to his Id. I’ll give myself the benefit of the doubt by mentioning that I phrased it the other way round initially – a Freudian slip?

equal, but different

Made of flesh and blood, endowed with potentially capable brains, men and women are equal.

Look at the main clause: Doesn’t the men’s priority in mentioning them first, which is common practice not only in English language, already imply that we are different? Is it not rather the case that neither our flesh and blood nor our brains are equal?

Take the following instance as being symbolical for the general discrepancy between theoretical equality and practical difference in women and men. The supposedly egalitarian world of academia is not exempt from (implicit) gender segregation. The truth is that although half of the girls in some German states reach higher education entrance qualification compared to only one third of boys, the former make up only five percent of the professorship. This fact is referred to as institutional racism in higher education by Rangasamy, where discrimination is apparently not as implicit as it may be assumed to be. The question that may be immediately raised is that of why? Why are women being discriminated against in a context where equality is cherished, at least theoretically? Is it because of traditional gender roles, which my granddad would bluntly summarize in the long-established idea of women’s duties restricted to the fields of Kinder-Küche-Kirche, meaning that they are confined to a domestic space including their kids, the kitchen, and, as social meeting place, the church? Don’t get me wrong, my gramps is very progressive and egalitarian, particularly when it comes to the unwritten but still manifest gender roles in Poland, a country that is much more traditional than some other Western European country. Still, this mere idea of segregating women into a particular “female” space and thus secluding them from anything that belongs to higher education, critical thinking and higher occupational positions, is worthy of notice. If females do get a good position, they often have to work twice as much and will still earn about twenty percent less although they have exactly the same qualifications and competencies.

Apart from academia, women and men are different when it comes to the pursuit of sex. Even now. From an evolutionary perspective, it appears logical that men are the active part seeking to spread their genes anytime anywhere, whereas females take a more cautionary approach in making sure that their offspring is being cared for by a loving and nurturing partner. This may explain men’s higher desire for sex and women’s emotional involvement in relationships to a certain extent. But this won’t be the whole story about why men have been openly practicing their sexuality since the year one, whereas women’s desire went fairly unnoticed until researchers like Kinsey scientifically investigated female sexuality for the first time in the 50’s. It appears that the whole difference in sexual desire experienced by males and females does not merely rest on some immutable biological factors, but a great deal of it can be traced back to cultural factors, memes, if you will. A logical consequence of cultural segregation of females from their physical selves and sexual desires is their eventual quest for liberation. Since in real life it’s still difficult for a woman to overcome unwritten taboos in this respect particularly when it comes to practices which are deemed deviant, they may seek adventures and fulfillment in alternative spheres, one of which is the virtual. Not surprisingly, scientific studies show that it’s females, a marginalized group with regards to the pursuit of sexual behaviors, who engage in cybersex and who engage in it compulsively. It appears that if there’s no real world outlet, it can be found in some dark corner of a chat room or anything comparable. What may be even more interesting is the scientifically validated fact that it is particularly females who will go and meet their virtual sex partners in real life and they are much more likely (significantly more likely, for that matter) to do this relative to their male counterparts.

To phrase it in the words of a friend, the moment, when women and men are equal appear in mutually experienced and shared love. However, this moment may soon be over when one of them loses their faith in the relationship for however irrelevant the reason may be. And there we are, back again at the imbalance, the difference that appears, viewed from another perspective. The difference may grow in scope and impact because egocentricity, the innate survival instinct, takes the space of commitment.

So why do we claim to be equal, when, in the end, we’re so different? And anything but equal? Let me quote again: “because in love at some point in space and time we are equal”. Possibly that’s exactly the equality that both men and women are seeking, without compromises, without established gender roles, beyond the transcendentality of academia, the profanity of life and physical desires.

Writing for science

Now that I have finished writing up my first (sub)chapter, I have two insights to share:

A PhD is about structure and organization.

Writing is about flow.

And, apparently, it can be a hazardous business trying to reconcile the two positions. As a matter of fact, if you write for science, you write for an academic public which wants clear and concise information. Writing for science is not about elegance and artistic proficiency in stringing together euphonious words.

In this respect, a long anticipated fear materializes once again: The usage of language for science may restrict the creative potential of a writer to the extent that no truly beautiful  linguistic result can ensue. Does writing a PhD thesis transform the writer into a conglomerator of facts lost in the confinements of structure and logic? Just think about highly specified guidelines for authors required by peer-reviewed journals. If you write for a journal, you are supposed to write in that particular journal’s style, addressing a peculiar audience with your words. Does that mean that one’s innate love of language may suffer as a gloomy consequence of this?

On the other hand, writing for a specified audience may very much support a writer’s flexibility in choosing his words in accordance with what is needed to the end that writing has to become reflexive and carefully thought through. In line with this, writing is not what happens at the spot, but it becomes a process which extends to the future, incorporating life-long learning, to phrase it in idealized fashion.

Still, considering the above mentioned confinements, how is it possible to achieve flow when writing for science? Is there something like flow possible in scientific writing? Maybe when you’ve internalized all the academic literature and insights you want to present, the words will come to you naturally. Maybe the challenge in writing for science lies in the fact that reflexivity, clearly addressed and formulated, is required as a standard for comprehension. A scientific writer must be capable of putting together a piece of work ensuring that its content is comprehensive even for persons unfamiliar with the respective topic. Delving in the apparent beauty of language and possibly producing highly complex sentence structures may thwart this goal.

The end goal, then, remains a reconciliation of the reproduction of scientific content with the splendor of words. Maybe it’s just a matter of finding the adequate journal whose editors do not shy away from publishing science presented in a well crafted manner. And a written piece of work is crafted well when the reader witnesses flow in the writer’s product. Flow is what may even bring a dry literature review to life.  

A note on the social network

Zuckerberg goes global. Or, to phrase it more plebeian, Zuckerberg goes billionaire.

Synoptically, his mission is to make the world open. As open as to allowing the whole world a glimpse at your own diminutive microcosm, globalized via your facebook profile. On facebook’s account, globalization must be specified to every fourteenth person on this earth. Indeed, facebook has reached a world-wide penetration of 500 million, making it THE social network ( the article the has been left out in the course of this endeavor, thanks to the inspiration of Napster’s Sean Parker, simplifying the facebook to a mere facebook).

Facebook, launched in 2004, started off as a network for Harvardians, reaching out to the elite of academics-to-be. Not as an educational tool, but one that would radically alter social relationships and render the individual transparent to his peers and beyond. Issues of privacy would not only leave employers consider banning it from their employees’ accessible sites due to distractions in the workplace and efficiency issues, but a number of countries, including China, Iran and North Korea, did block it temporally.

Social networks let us connect to family and friends, anytime, anywhere. They are the easy way out not only to have a look at what’s going on in their lives, but also to engage in discourse about anything that may appear to be a common interest. Fortunately, Facebook lets us stalk ex-fiancés as well as potential lovers, just for the sake of satisfying our innate curiosity.

Facebook is a tool for building communities, getting in touch and staying in touch with people around us, anyone around the globe, really. Moreover, facebook is becoming a tool for sharing knowledge, and this is exactly where its academic potential may lay.

The idea of networking is not new to academics. On the contrary: If it wasn’t for networking, the mere idea of a scientific community would be obsolete.

We want it. The stats speak volumes. But do we need it? Up to date, no research exists telling us how much time people spend on facebook or social networks alike. What we do know, however, is that the average user logs on ten times a week. Ten times a week! Still, due to the relative recency of its launch, we do not know much about the demographics of facebook users as well as their usage habits. Apart from the media focusing on privacy breaches, up to date there no further debates exist grounded in scientific understanding about how facebook is (irreversibly) transforming the ways we relate. It may be a tool shrinking the world, bringing us ever closer to the global village McLuhan was envisaging and getting to the core of Rheingold’s very idea of the virtual community. In what ways, then, would you think of a community when its members have surpassed half a billion?

That’s hot. Or not? Facebook it.

On the fourth day...

… all nocturnal brainstorming and rumination about theoretical constructs and the practicalities of their exploration are redeemed with Eureka moments, which shine as bright as the stars in the sky.

These illuminated nights give way to beaming days, in the course of which initial flashes of inspiration are rendered discernible for the PhD student’s myopic eye. Suddenly, concrete ideas appear. The time has come to set out reconnoitering creativity and finding it blossoming just like flowers touched by the vernal sun.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Follow-up: The discontents of disembodiment

Now that I have delved into the amenities of text-based communication, let me initially make a brief note of weblogs, which find themselves somewhere in between emails and instant messages. Not only do they offer the possibility to have a conversation with oneself (thus making them comparable to emails), but also with the public (á la IMs). The advantages of blogs compared to each of the other two channels are the following: First, they offer the room to elaborate on thoughts without necessitating simultaneous recognition of and attention to the receiver, thus making them superior to IMs. Second, they are a low threshold tool for publishing; even though the words that are put down usually have relatively private, even intimate content, they are not only intended for a single receiver; rather, the blogger (more or less consciously) recognizes that the potential audience may reach almost infinite numbers – or to put it as bluntly as Nardi: Blogging is a social activity or would you let 900 million people read your diary? I will return to the concept of utterly staggering levels of self-disclosure and –presentation online at some later point in time. As concerns blogs, they are somewhat protected places because of their asynchronous nature, comparable to emails, however, they still offer the tendency to be used as social means of communication.

Let me now turn to something else I have not paid adequate attention to in my previous intermezzo. When I was thinking about the discontents of text-based communications, the primary issue I was dealing with was that of miscommunication, misrepresentation and –interpretation of the message. The discontents this entails are out of question. Another issue did not appear to me then: Disembodiment. To a certain extent I mentioned it with the lack of facial expression and gestures, which convey large amounts of information on top of the transmitted verbal accounts. This, I think, is quite apparent. But, what’s even more, is the ultimate need not only to look into your conversation partner’s eyes and watch their impression of what you say on their face, but text-based communication furthermore disallows any physical contact with the other person while you’re communicating. Different cultures will of course set certain limits to how people touch each other while communicating; if you were simply to compare how people in the North greet each other with a simple nod of their heads to how Southerners kiss and hug each other even when they’ve just seen the other the night before (please excuse the simplification, that’s just for the purpose of bringing my point across).

The content of the conveyed message may necessitate some degree of physical contact. Sometimes you just want to hug your friend when they tell you about a sad message they’ve just received or when they proclaim that they are getting married next month. Virtual communication, whether text-based or including visual channels such as webcams, does not allow for anything comparable. I may want to integrate the concept of telepresence when speaking of virtual communication and extend the initial concept of text-based virtual communication to including further channels.

Disembodiment online can have the consequence of distant, detached, even sterile communication; it’s not merely a matter of touch, but also tone of voice. The fine nuances of the latter will not be adequately transmitted via voice-over-IP most of the time either, not to mention the olfactory or gustatory channel. Odors are strong evocators of memories and may thus manifest a feeling of belongingness and attachment between communicators. (Again I must excuse the terminology; from the perspective of communication or media studies it appears to make quite some sense speaking of “communicators” while for a psychologist this seems less appropriate. I promise to come up with terms that appear more fluid and natural as soon as I’ve set my brain on that track.) To quote an intuitive participant in one of my studies: Nothing compares to a real kiss. No matter how deep and intimate a virtual conversation is, no matter what kinds of intimate and (cyber)erotic messages are exchanged, nothing will compare to that other person’s unique touch.

Emails are for business, blogs are for publishing and IMs are for chatting. Face-to-face talk is for bonding. In so many ways.

The communicators I was referring to before were friends, people who are close to each other, who stay in contact via various channels. The story is quite a different one when we start talking about strangers, people who may meet each other online initially. Disembodiment in this sense offers a variety of incentives; as a famous comic puts it: Online, no one knows you’re a dog. It’s true. In a chat room, forum or MMORPG, no one knows your age, gender, race, educational background, financial status, you name it. This gives you the freedom to explore your identity, to genderbend, to take on personas which are entirely different from your up-to-then taken-for granted self. For tremendously insightful revelations you may be referred to Sherry Turkle, a cybershrink, who never shied away from adopting her knowledge of the psyche and translating it from the real (well, in psychopathology “real” comes to denominate as little of a clear construct as “normal” does) to the virtual. Exploration and the transgression of (culturally, environmentally imposed) boundaries are the key elements for people to experiment with their identities. Many will find new parts of their selves, hidden identities, alter egos, which they may never have thought of before. What a joy to be online! It’s a bit like changing countries and starting from zero in a new environment where nobody really knows who you are. You come to be who you wish to be. And there are no limits whatsoever imposed on you on the Internet. Accordingly, I do look forward to my potential interviewee’s thoughts on this!

Let me leave you with this: Exploration online via disembodiment opens doors of which you never knew that they existed. Embodiment, on the other hand, endows you with physical contact.

Sometimes all you need is a hug.

Intermezzo: On the discontents of text-based communication

When you open your email folder in the morning, you briefly skim the senders, delete half of the messages since they are spam, postpone reading some to later, and others you need to read straight away. The same may hold for answering those emails. Some may not deserve an answer, others can wait. Some you may want to answer straight away.

The amenity of emails is their asynchronous nature. You have the choice of whether, whom and when to answer, all at your own pace. What a luxury! Whether you’re lazy, short of time or just need some moments to think about what to write, emails give you the chance to take your time. They give you freedom of choice.

Messengers offer the possibility to have a quick chat in between all the academic stuff that’s waiting there to be done, to check up on your friends, discuss the latest news and keep you up-to-date with what is and what is not academic, the profane. The obvious advantage of this type of text-based communication compared to emails is synchronicity; usually you’ll send and receive messages at the same time. Thus, you can have something comparable to a talk with somebody, a chat, really.

Compared to speech, using chats will still offer the possibility to think about what you’re writing while typing. You won’t necessarily have the time for this while you speak. You can phrase the words in a particular way and think about the impression you’re creating with what you’re writing. And that’s exactly where the discontent comes from: Your intention does not necessarily have to match the receiver’s impression of what you put down. If it wasn’t for all sorts of possible emoticons, a little joke on your behalf may appear as some kind of an offence to the reader. The receiver, particularly when he’s not aware of your writing style, your humor, your personality, won’t have to understand the meaning you try to convey in your words. Likewise, he won’t necessarily interpret chat pauses the way they occur. Maybe you just go and grab a coffee and that’s why it takes a couple of minutes longer to answer for you. This may be interpreted as not wanting to talk to that person, as disrespectful. But you may have never wanted to convey this message. Thus, this indirect communication, communication between the lines, entails different meanings for both sender and receiver. It’s this particular form of communication, text-based, which may cause discontent.

Even though chat is supposedly synchronous, there’s a time gap in between reading, understanding, thinking about an answer and actually typing and sending your response. This, particularly for the fast typers among us, causes a delay in communication, in such a way that you’re responding to an earlier message while several others have followed and the sender won’t really know whether this response concerns his initial statement or a later one. This may lead to confusion and you may have to clarify your point. In ordinary speech, this won’t happen. While others talk, you won’t just simply talk at the same time. In text-based communication, you read and write at the same time with your communication partner.

Delays, miscommunication and misinterpretation are what make text-based, even synchronous text-based communication tricky. On the one hand, this new type of exchange is profitable and advantageous because it offers an easy way to get in touch. You can have a chat window open and at the same time check the news, skim an academic article and look at tomorrow’s weather forecast. On the other hand, you need to be aware of the pitfalls of this communication. Particularly when it’s “serious” matter you try to communicate, text-based communication is not necessarily the optimal mode to be chosen. Instead, good old fashioned emails appear more adequate for they offer the possibility to think a thought through and formulate it before the next text appears which the sender awaits response to. Furthermore, emoticons are limited. Even though you may choose between s, s, ^^s and the like, a text won’t convey your facial expression, your gestures, what’s really personal about communication. On the other end, particular emails can become even more than that, namely hyperpersonal communication. Following Walther, the hyperpersonal indicates that the sender presents himself as a social person aware of the fact that his message may be read in a certain way and thus he tries to omit anything that may appear ambivalent and thus compromise his initial intentions. Secondly, he will present himself favorably, so that the social nature of this interaction is furthermore manifested. In direct speech, the absolute synchronicity of communication does not allow for hyperpersonal interaction; it’s merely personal.

So what can one do in order to resolve this dilemma? Stick with emails and forget about any other type of communication? This is an intriguing idea. But no, sometimes you do need to see your conversation partner’s face, how they smirk when you delve in shared memories, how they wrinkle their nose when you tell them about the British food you had last night or how they open their mouth in astonishment about the rude behavior of your neighbor’s child.

But sometimes you need the semi-distance a written word creates. It not only distances you from your conversation partner, but it may distance you from your emotions at that particular moment and gives you the option to have a meta-view on your conversation and what you intend to convey and what’s better left unspoken, or unwritten, for that matter.

Conclusively, text-based communication is both boon and bane of interpersonal interaction. Only when we’re aware of its pitfalls can we use it most efficiently. You may wonder why I’m bothering in the first place, since everyone uses it anyways. Well, at some point in time everybody will be confronted with text-based communication’s discontents and thus it’s necessary to bear in mind that the intended message does not equal the received message. In the end, the medium is the message. Make of it what you deem best.

Meanwhile I’ll make sure to come up with some more emoticons to satisfy my need for meta-textual synchronous communication.

On the third day...

... there appears the distinction between the academic and the profane.

This suggests two issues.

First of all, it implies that academia entails divine qualities.

Look at crowds of young students in the morning (and postgrads at midday) pilgrimaging to the holy halls of the University. Listen to a lecturer opening his talk with personal anecdotes and reflections and compare this to a pastor initiating the Holy Mass. Watch eager students hanging on their Professor’s every word, not only internalizing the content of what’s being said, but feeding on the aura of wisdom. Enter the rearmost areas of a library and find yourself secluded from anything that may approximate the profane. Be surrounded by knowledge with every ancient book that’s lying there on the shelves which may give you insight about the past just the way the Bible does. Let the academic be the land, on which more knowledge is still to grow.

Academia is divine.

Secondly, it implies that academia is not only merely different from, but it’s diametrically opposed to the profane.

The profane includes the whole context of an academic endeavor, everything else which is not directly tied to it. In the life of a PhD student, is there much left? Yes, there is, though one may question whether there’s much of it, anyways. This not only includes what is deemed recreational time (to be used not only for studying those ancient books I mentioned earlier), but emotions and hassles tied to the route towards the academic goal, individual joy and sorrow. Let it be as secular as the choice between cooking some healthy meal or visiting the take-away next door after a hard day’s work is finished. Let it be as mundane as chatting to your friend in Germany about the hormonal cause for women’s apparent unrationalizeable sentiments. Let the profane be the water, which is unpredictable in its vastness.

A PhD’s life is profane.

I will not delve into the immanent linkage between these two concepts, they may, or may not, appear quite obvious during the course of this whole endeavor. Instead, I shall continue with the creation of something entirely new, namely the blossoming of the initial idea. The idea was there at the beginning, but now its evolution begins. A PhD project necessitates a topic. The first step is setting the stage for research. This entails an encompassing literature review and discursive brainstorming, questioning the ones around you to gather new ideas and insights, accumulating knowledge about possible ways you could be heading towards for the next coming weeks, months and years. It’s an exciting process, where you will face rusty moments of rumination because you’re stuck, which however may be brightened by eureka experiences. The research question, precise and to the point, is somewhere out there, just keep your eyes open and your head focused and suddenly it may pop up.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

On day two...

... I guess I have to tell you why I'd go with Fay Weldon's life and loves instead of reminiscing about real virtuality á la Manuel Castells.




A PhD-to-be is a normal person.



I am aware of the fact that "normality" is somewhat of a flexible term. What I mean to say is basically that even though my whole endeavor (again, be reminded, that's an academic degree) is academic in nature, it does entail all the intricacies that are inextricably tied to it.




Let me briefly mention the most obvious one, just to give you a feel for it.




A new country.




In the UK...



... people do drive on the WRONG side of the road.



They cue up in front of the bus in orderly fashion the way you learn to do it in kindergarden. (!)



You'll find yourself being hugged by random people in the middle of the street entirely boozed up at 8pm already and asked whether you'd like to join them for a drink or whatever (gender doesn't really matter here).



There is no healthy food. Not to mention anything that might approximate something like food culture.



There's no way you could smoke except for in front of buildings. As they say, smokers won't die of lung cancer, but of freezing to death outside of pubs.



You'll be mistaken for any other nationality but yours. (funny thing is I appear quite Scottish.)



************************



Another thing is what and who you leave behind and all the emotions tied to this.




Settling in on an entirely new road makes you reflect on what you have and what you miss.




It's strange that you won't really get to think - well, reflect, really - on what it means to you to be surrounded by people who are used to your idiosyncratic habits and proclivities and who've spent a great deal of time dealing with and getting accustomed to it.




This, however, may not only result in efforts on your behalf to present yourself most favorably, but it also opens the door for you to explore yourself, your up to then taken for granted identity, and start anew. Tabula rasa. It means that you get the chance to configure a new self.



And this is exactly where virtual experience ties in. I'll explore this later on with my research, so prepare yourselves for exciting revelations!



Let me return to what's left behind, since this is where this train of thought initially started off.




There are those very special people, who you've known and who've known you forever, whom you love and cherish for all they've been through with you, for all they've done for you and for the way they've made you feel. That's a big chapter.



Another chapter concerns the people that you may have just recently met and who've suddenly, but intensely, occupied some space inside of you.




Physical distance doesn't mean disattachment. Physical distance may entail lack of direct contact, lack of regular contact. But, let me make this a big BUT, it does not mean that you disappear and the past is forgotten. You will carry your memories along with you as you go and proceed towards some other goal. You may work towards what your heart and mind are telling you. But you will never forget the moments when you felt at home with someone. You will never forget how it feels like to connect with somebody who's close to you.




Just like normality, proximity is an elastic term.




It is fed by your memories and your emotions. It may take just a (virtual) smile to remind you of what has been and what is still to come.




For now, let me leave you with this brief interlude. I'm sure Castells won't mind that I've traveled beyond the virtual to capture some of the complexities taking on a route towards academic gratification carries along with it.




In the end, it's all an adventure which might bring me, as a PhD-to-be, as one among all of us (citizens of the net, normal people, as it were), closer to both my academic and my very personal goal, self-fulfillment and happiness. Reconstruction and re-discovery come at a price. And I shall be willing to pay for it.




PhD, here we go.

At the beginning there was...

... the word? Well, yes, you could put it like that if you wanted to. The word, however, was more like an idea, which slowly and silently cropped up in my head and remained there ever since:

PhD, baby!

What a plan. Left home, family and friends, all that was familiar and precious, in order to sacrifice 36 (+ 12) months in front of enormous stacks of dusty books and, of course, the screen!

All of this was done for the purpose of researching life on the screen, following in the steps of Turkle and all those like-minded new age scientists who would never shy away from experimenting with the new. Those, who would entirely immerse themselves in what came to be known and hyped as cyberspace, an alternative sphere, quite different from and at the same time synonomous to what is real.

Why did I choose this extraordinary path instead of remaining with what was known to me, secure and cozy?

It's a precarious adventure, one that I wouldn't dare to miss. It's a great opportunity.

It might be the time of my life.