This blog has drifted away from its original piratical purpose (to which I very much hope to return in time for my capstone next semester), but since it's a convenient and publicly accessible platform, I'd like to use it to share my response to American University's new "wonk" marketing campaign. For some background, I'd encourage you to check out both the university's official website devoted to the campaign and The Eagle's coverage of its launch on campus.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Robert A. Heinlein
While I think the goals of promoting community spirit and pride in knowledge of American University's recent "American wonk" marketing campaign are commendable -- as may well be the attempt to reappropriate the term "wonk"-- I don't think this term conveys what's great about our campus community to people not familiar with what we are attempting to accomplish linguistically. As dictionary.com and Wiktionary.org reveal, the connotative meaning of the term -- to people not associated with AU -- is overwhelmingly negative, not to mention historically charged with racial and sexual orientation overtones. While AU is seeking to independently redefine the term, realistically, I don't believe we're in a position to accomplish that at a level that extends beyond the campus community and incoming freshmen who are not familiar with the term. Linguistic reappropriation tends to be most successful when it is broadly and intersubjectively undertaken. Is AU really in a position to effect that level of societal change? Think about the contemporary connotations of "queer" and the struggle to reclaim it as a term of pride outside of a limited community. The negative connotations of "wonk" may not be as charged or even as hateful, but they're present nonetheless, and I'm skeptical of AU's ability to single-handedly whitewash them away. Based on the interviews in the promotional video, the vast majority of students who were enthusiastic about the campaign had never heard the word "wonk" before. What of those who had and found "wonk" wanting? Anecdotal evidence from AU peers, alumni, and outsiders to the campus community indicates that the negative connotations of "wonk" are alive and well.
Furthermore, as a cultural practice, the reappropriation of formerly derogatory or inflammatory terms requires an honest acknowledgement of their status as hateful, mean-spirited, or biased. AU seems to have made no such effort with this "wonk" campaign, glossing over the negative connotations and handing down a brand-new definition of the word that may exhibit certain denotative similarities with its ancestors, but which does not confront -- and therefore cannot overcome -- the sins of its father.
The real-world uses of "wonk" being tracked by the American Wonks website are certainly a mixed bag in terms of whether they are used positively ("A reader is impressed with brainiac wonks Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and asks if they are the future of conservatism") or negatively ("Speaking of nebulous politicospeak, Taegan Goddard's new wonk-tastic Political Dictionary is now available"). But more importantly, almost all of them are used to refer to professionals with narrow interests, often unable to communicate those interests to a wider audience or relate them to other fields: "Two researchers created an experiment that will be known beyond psych wonks." (Merriam-Webster concurs with this latter sense.) Is this really how we want AU graduates to be characterized? As (social) scientists or practitioners unable to make their work relevant, accessible, or interesting to those outside their field or professional circle?
More fundamentally, even if we accept the more charitable definitions of "wonk" as gaining some cultural traction -- and it's possible that AU is part of a broader movement in that direction -- I believe that the word's association with highly specific areas of knowledge is the wrong message for our university to be sending. An undergraduate institution, at least, should aspire to and take pride in cultivating well-rounded, critical, analytical thinkers -- not cranking out narrowly specialized pre-professionals. Indeed, that's the very goal of the General Education Program. It is explicitly anti-wonkish.
Finally, I'm troubled by the explicit focus on "universities as businesses." I understand that a great deal of marketing research was undertaken to produce this particular branding attempt -- and that a certain amount of advertising is absolutely necessary to let people know about the excellent classes, professors, and ideals AU has to offer -- but I think we make a mistake when we think of AU as something to sell, rather than as a place to come to learn -- and perhaps more importantly, to learn how to learn. When we "brand" and "label" (quite literally, in the case of the free t-shirts the university was handing out liberally on the quad today -- and at what cost?) our undergraduates as specialists, we're endorsing an idea and creating certain expectations about what kind of person we want students to become. Do we really want our undergraduates to be experts? Or would we prefer that they be educated in a variety of fields which will inevitably touch upon, influence, and inform their chosen field of work?
As AU seeks to define itself and identify its niche in the world of higher education, it is important that we do not lose sight of the broader goal of helping students learn how to learn, think, and act as responsible, ethical, and informed citizens. And if we've given up that goal in order to train students to get elected as politicians, hired as corporate executives, and appointed to diplomatic posts -- to sell our university to prospective students in the crudest sense of the term -- we've given up on all the things I know and love about American University.
I am impressed, beyond complete conveyance, with the content and delivery of this post. Thorough, mature, and incisive, you provide an excellent analysis of a campaign that, sadly, falls short and will be short-lived. Though it wasn't necessarily the article's intent, I think your rational article guts the Wonk campaign; those involved with its creation and implementation would be hard-pressed to counter it effectively. As a 2009 alumnus, I'm proud to see current students continuing the tradition of academic excellence and cogent analysis that I hope all AU students will graduate exhibiting and able to exhibit.
ReplyDeleteAre you as troubled with the term Wonkette, as in the highly successful liberal blog?
ReplyDeleteExcellent post.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about this campaign, I had to look up what "wonk" even really means, as mostly I have heard it within the context of "political wonk" which I never thought was really a positive term, or one you would want to blanket on an entire university. Then I thought, "Oh, AU is trying to be self-deprecating and humorous, that's kind of funny, maybe I can dig that." Until I realized it was a much more comprehensive and expensive campaign and not just a few T-shirts they were giving out for free on campus.
The fact is that AU is trying to completely re-write the definition of "wonk," which is reallllly not how branding works. Of course, I'm no "marketing wonk," but I know from the classes on branding and marketing research that I took at AU (and common sense) that you don't improve an image with complex re-defining of commonly held beliefs. You build off of commonly held beliefs in innovative but simple to understand ways to reflect more positively on the client (AU) and incite happiness/intrigue in the customer (prospective student). Wonk doesn't do that. It confuses and misleads and require you go to a website equipped with comics in order to understand the concept.
Which makes me think AU would have been better served recruiting some AU classes with AU students to take on this re-branding campaign instead of an outside marketing research firm. A campaign that would have better reflected AU students without coming off as tawdry and forced, and irritating most of the AU alums who don't fit into a "wonk" box AND the AU alums who are self-proclaimed wonks but still don't think an entire university should be slapped with that label.
The Wonkette example keeps coming up, and it falls short. Do we want our university's brand to point to a snarky liberal (or any political bend) blog as an example of its bedfellow? What of all of the non-political "wonks" that this campaign purports to speak to?
ReplyDeleteSadly, this is the problem with blogs. Anyone can post something that is an uneducated opinion that has NOT been fully researched and that clearly doesn't understand the topic at hand.
ReplyDeleteThis is why those of us that actually stay on topic, research our articles and add value rather than just a b!tch fest, are paid for our thoughts rather than some random person writing whatever comes to their mind.
It's a sad world we live in when the term journalistic integrity is completely ignored and instead of writing about their research fellowship, we have to hear about how they don't know what they want to do with their lives.
@B^3 - Thank you very much for your kind words! If you're on Facebook and want to keep up with and take part in a grassroots "anti-wonk" movement, I'd encourage you to join the "Anti-Wonks" Facebook group.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous (the first) - I'm neutral on the Wonkette blog title. It may well be appropriate to the goals and orientation of that site, but I don't think it's appropriate the the goals and identity of American University. I do think it's relevant that Wonkette is one of the associations that leaps to mind when people hear the word "wonk;" while Wonkette may well represent a creative and successful reappropriation of the term, it retains the politics-heavy, narrow focus of the term, which is that to which I am objecting as an ascribed identity for AU.
@Kelly - To my understanding, there was some involvement of AU students (including at least one undergraduate marketing class) at various points in the process. However, it's not clear that dissenting voices were much heeded. I also think it's interesting to compare this marketing campaign with the Be _______ campaign from about five years ago, which was (anecdotally) much more popular -- and student-initiated.
@Anonymous (the second) -- As you haven't provided any warrants for much of your critique, I'm not sure I can do much to respond, but I'll give it a shot. I'm not a random person; I'm a senior at American University. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the posts on this blog are directly related to my research fellowship from last summer; if you came here to find those, they're still present, tagged, and publicly available. If not, my first paragraph should have provided adequate rationale and warning for the content of this post.
Furthermore, it is precisely because AU provides funding for an incredibly diverse set of undergraduate research projects -- not just those with immediate professional or policy relevance -- that I was able to spend a summer researching and analyzing the discourse surrounding maritime piracy in relation to the state. This is what I love and respect about AU -- and the sort of approach to education that I feel is diminished by the "wonk" campaign.
And I do know what I want to do with my life -- I want to become a scholar and professor of International Relations -- but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the arguments I am making here. More importantly, I don't in any way think undergraduates should have to know what they want to do with their lives; they shouldn't be expected to enter AU with a clear four-year plan for how they will become a wonk. That's really at the crux of the matter. Handing out free t-shirts emblazoned with "wonk" to freshmen on their first day of classes creates distinct expectations to the contrary.