Metaphors and kangkong professors

 

A metaphor is a figure of speech. It can be a word or a phrase. In everyday speech, we are familiar with “life is a rollercoaster”, “he cried buckets”, “bucket list”, “she is a night owl”, and so on.

Metaphors are important because they help us communicate ideas easily. In academia, metaphors are extremely useful, especially when combining theory with reality. In our articles, books, and lectures, they enhance complicated concepts with imagery.

For example, in physics, the “big bang” metaphor is used to theorise about the origins of the universe. The imagery helps us to understand density, pressure, heat, force, and cooling in the creation of the planets.

In international relations common metaphors used are “systems”, “theatre”, “platform”, and “structures”. Structures in international relations is used metaphorically as “that which defines world affairs”. Otherwise, it typically implies physical qualities.

In academia, metaphors help us theorise about the bigger picture. It helps us make sense of the world we live in. However, in Malaysia, and among academics, many have developed a dismissive attitude towards theory and theorising. But many have the knack for metaphorical speech.

Thinking about theory in our universities has become a superficial exercise. It is a required component of the thesis proposal for students. It is mandatory that they select an “approach” and frame their arguments around it.

In my experience, both students and academics are good at listing theories. They know how to parrot the basic tenets of theories such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, and so on.

The difficulty begins after this. They fail in the application of theory to reality. There is no excuse for professors, as they are supposedly trained in this skill when they were students. They are supposed to pass this skill onto their students. Their difficulties are the result of our national attitude towards education.

Our uncritical approach to knowledge production is widespread. We are terribly narrow-minded. It shows in how we quantify education and ignore the value of “the bigger picture”, which theory provides.

Let us look at the metaphor “kangkong professor”. The term was coined by Professor Syed Hussein Alatas to refer to professors who are “devoid of knowledge to the core”. Many Malaysian professors have since been labelled as kangkong, due to their glaring sense of entitlement, and silly and politicised analysis on a host of subjects. Their exaltation as scholars and “thinkers” is undeserved.

The kangkong phenomenon is even more apparent these days, due to the mushrooming of online webinars, panel discussions, and international seminars. More academics have taken advantage of publicising their “expertise”. The public too has more access. I suppose this could be one of the few advantages of “working from home”. But really, it isn’t. It is a great imposition to the genuine scholars, and an obstacle to the progress of our society.

Let us look at the social sciences. Academic webinars and panel discussions provide opportunities for the exchange of ideas about current developments around the world.

Forums could be specifically related to the academic discipline, or focused on current events in politics, international relations, public health, or human rights.

Higher levels of critical thinking

Competent scholars would organise their narratives around both theory and empirical evidence. Metaphors are often used to help the audience understand the intersection between theory and reality. This is the usual approach in any serious discussion by scholars of note. It is here where the Malaysian kangkong professor embarrasses.

In politics, for example, a genuine scholar might present her interpretation of the recent Myanmar coup, providing the latest facts to narrate how events unfolded. She might also discuss the theory of democracy, corruption, and civil-military relations, to explain why events took place in 2021 and not a year earlier.

I have observed many Malaysian professors who are either speakers, or step in as a discussant. Most avoid commenting on the theoretical aspects of an issue. This is where Malaysian academics have difficulties, even the experienced, “old hats”. They are dismissive of theory, claiming it is an “ivory tower” exercise in boredom. The use of ivory tower as a metaphor is excellent, but they get an F for avoiding theory.

Academics want to keep an audience interested. The audience often consists of members of the public, most of whom may not be academics. In my opinion, such an audience will be interested if the speaker combines both the theoretical and the empirical. The point is to enhance understanding by connecting theoretical patterns with reality. Interjecting metaphors keeps the audience engaged. The goal is to raise the standard of comprehension and develop higher levels of critical thinking in our society.

Using the Myanmar example, we might like to know how the country could avoid future coups, to prevent further human suffering or similar coups elsewhere. Theorising about why the coup took place in 2021 and not a year before, serves this purpose. This requires a theoretical understanding of poverty, elitism, ethnic conflict, and corruption that could inform other societies facing similar problems.

Avoiding meaty discussions

Kangkong professors prefer to avoid such meaty discussions. They dismiss theory as irrelevant or a waste of time. There are thousands among them who know their metaphors well. But their limited capacity as scholars results in their use of metaphors, as either insults or hollow polemics. They do not understand that theory matters in all aspects of life, and that education requires some level of theorising. It is their job to simplify the process by using appropriate metaphors.

Theory provides a framework for interpretation. What we observe and what others tell us are guided by the theories we know. Most importantly, theory develops our critical thinking and our ability to prevent making the same mistakes in the future.

Unless one has the skill in intellectual reflection, one will use metaphors flippantly. Our professors are supposed to be philosophically inclined. To solve our education crisis, we cannot keep dismissing the theoretical fundamentals which define a university education.

The kangkong professors who lack scholarly depth or critical thinking skills tend to memorise these fundamentals. They may sound profound, but they use metaphors dim-wittedly, and fail to connect theory with reality. They end up providing superficial analyses of serious problems in society. It is no wonder that our education is in such a crisis today. - Mkini

---

SHARIFAH MUNIRAH ALATAS is an academician with zero tolerance for corrupt, arrogant and frivolous leadership.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.