(Part 2)
In my more than a decade of work in the academe, I have encountered a few teachers who seem to lack a good dose of self-confidence. They only seem bent on bringing drama to the table — they seem to live for intrigue and made-up issues. So I try to avoid them as much as possible because it’s not good for my mental health.
There is no doubt about their intelligence, some of them indisputably smart; albeit most of them are not, and even seem to have a penchant to seeking validation from others.
I have encountered some who attempt to pull down their own colleagues due to envy of their successes (also referred to as professional jealousy). There are also others who fiercely compete with their colleagues which, on hindsight, is sometimes a good thing as it encourages better productivity.
This is the silver lining among teachers who feel insecure: they try so hard to beat or keep up with the others, and in the end, become productive themselves. And for that I say: Kudos!
Nevertheless, the reason why I’m writing about insecurity in the academe is because it’s the same trait that drives people to smart-shame others.
In the recent Philippine national elections, smart-shaming was a common occurrence. At least many of those that I personally heard or read about came from the “31 million majority”.
These rabid supporters would always belabor the argument that supporters of former Vice President Leni Robredo, or the critics of BBM, are “elitists” and are “feeling-smart”. They’ve called out the Leni supporters many times, usually playing the victim card, and arguing that they “need not be educated”.
The whole “let me educate you” line was made-up by a social media “influencer” of the Marcoses to foster hate against the Leni supporters, and further expose issues of insecurity.
Suffice it to say, the line was so “effective” that it ostensibly undergirded the 31 million majority who felt victimized by this “intellectual elitism”.
As a result, the game of smart-shaming worsened, and many intellectuals — mostly academics — were ostracized for voicing out views that were anathema to the views of the 31 million majority.
Even some professors who, for some weird reasons are die-hard Marcos loyalists, started smart-shaming their own colleagues.
There is nothing wrong in holding differing views especially in politics as that is, and has always been, the essence of a democracy — people having different views and opinions.
I suppose the only thing that triggered the 31 million majority is that some people did not respect their opinion, which is understandable given that most of which are based on fabricated stories.
In a way, their smart-shaming campaign was effective as it was one of the factors that catapulted BBM to the presidency. Marcos and his supporters made it seem like they were the victims of smart individuals who were well-educated but “not well-mannered”. As they said: “Better to have no education with manners, than an educated person without manners.”
That line captured the sentiments of credulous Filipinos who invariably have the predilection to support the “underdog” or the “victim” so to speak.
There is no room, however, for smart-shaming in the academe. If people have different views, they should be able to rationalize and argue their views especially apropos of politics.
However, I’ve noticed that for those who cannot rationalize their views, they would almost always simply resort to smart-shaming. Unfortunately, even professionals in the academe resort to smart-shaming.
Professors always encourage their students to think critically, but what happens when they themselves do not think critically? And whenever these teachers are called out, they proceed to smart-shame the person calling them out.
If it’s true that old habits die hard, then my advice is simply to avoid and ignore them.
The academe’s role in society is to foster the free flow of knowledge, and to encourage intellectual discourse. It is supposed to be the place where individuals freely exchange their views and ideas; where their views are constructively scrutinized, and critiqued, where individuals learn to always seek for the truth.
It is not a breeding ground of petty, insecure individuals who disregard the serious task of creating new knowledge, but are only more interested to compete with others or seek validation from his colleagues.
Academics should always call out people who smart-shame, and should as much as possible encourage discourse.
In a democratic society, views and ideas should flow freely; however, if the views are questionable, then it should be criticized constructively.
If, later on, something is found to be untrue, then I suppose it would be a good enough reason for the person to adjust his perceptions and thinking, and not simply give the hackneyed riposte of “respect my opinion”.
One’s opinion should be respected, yes; but if such opinion is only based on lies, then it should be called out for what it is. That, I think, is a crucial role among academics: to seek only the truth, and call out those who spread lies and more disinformation.
What happens though if the academics themselves are the ones spreading lies? Who would check on the teachers?
I believe this is where students can also confidently play their part: question their teacher politely and constructively.
If the teacher still would not budge, then perhaps the next best thing for the students to do is simply to ignore their teacher; reacting could only exacerbate the issue, given that the lies may have been deeply-ingrained already in the teacher’s belief system.
We have to remember that academics — especially those in the field of history, like me — are expected to seek, let alone uphold, the truth.
It behooves us to combat any historical distortions that are spread in social media and in other platforms. Albeit we cannot totally control the spread of lies, we have to relentlessly do our part in upholding the truth, even if it leads to being smart-shamed, insulted, and talked behind our backs by insecure and envious individuals.
What matters most is that we do not stop protecting the truth, and do not allow people in power to create their own narrative based on lies or alternative facts.
___________________________________
Author’s email: JJAbulado@norsu.edu.ph
