When you release a non-fiction book, you are supposed to reveal as little information about yourself as you can. No photos, maybe a short bio, some dedication, but don’t be too “egomaniacal”. What about scholars’ books?
What I do and can live with
My readers know that I don’t hesitate to put my photos, videos or some short bio. The true scholar would expel me from their honorable institutions.
But what I do forms me. This is who I am, these are the books I wrote. Or we can extend it to my blogsite.
Scholars’ books: What I don’t do and cannot live with
I couldn’t live with anything that stinks with clientelism which is, of course, everything in academia. You must show excessive adulation. Are you a Jew, Catholic, Protestant? Door may be closed or not for you.
Another thing is confomism. Academia claims to value originality, but conformism dominates. Scholars follow trends, fearing isolation. Funding, publishing, and career advancement depend on aligning with prevailing views.
Money
Academia is built on clientelism, where funding—not curiosity—dictates the direction of research at every level. Scholars do not pursue truth freely; they chase money to survive. Grants from governments, corporations, and NGOs always come with strings attached. Corporations back only projects that protect their profits, while governments fund research that aligns with their policy goals, subtly shaping discourse. Even NGOs, despite their rhetoric of independence, support work that reinforces their ideological agendas. Researchers, in turn, must tailor their focus not for discovery but for approval. Unpopular or radical ideas are ignored, not because they lack substance, but because they do not fit the accepted narrative. Scholars’ books get no apraisal. Independent inquiry withers under this structure. Money does not merely bias knowledge—it dominates and defines it.
Crony-capitalism or crony-science?
Publishing in academia is a closed circuit where insiders dominate, and journal editors favor familiar names over quality. Peer review often acts as a gatekeeper, with reviewers rejecting work that challenges dominant views, not for lack of merit but for disrupting the status quo. Citation cartels inflate reputations through mutual promotion, making prestige—not originality—the key to success. Even groundbreaking research goes unnoticed without the right connections. Hiring follows the same clientelist logic, where institutional loyalty outweighs independent thought, and departmental politics decide careers more than intellectual merit.
Gross clientelism
Connection to the right circles may be extremely vital for one scientist. Then they will know your name and you gain credit.
Also, no controversial ideas. And does your professor steal from you? Well, just accept it.
Politics is worse. But academia is somehow just like mafia
Scholars and politicians operate on the same level, driven by patronage, clientelism, and self-preservation. Academia markets itself as a noble pursuit of truth, but it is just another system of power, gatekeeping, and silent corruption. It functions not as a community of independent thinkers but as a hierarchy where influence dictates success. It is a world of flattery, ideological obedience, and exclusion for those who refuse to conform.
Like politicians, scholars must secure their place through loyalty, alliances, and calculated silence. They flatter those in power, suppress dissent, and manipulate truth when necessary. Also, they do not serve knowledge; they serve their own survival. They do not debate opposing views; they erase them. Scholars do not reward the boldest thinkers; they reward the safest. They do not act as guardians of intellectual progress; they act as enforcers of their own interests.
The entire structure is riddled with clientelism. Hiring is not about ability but about connections. Publishing is not about truth but about approval from the right networks. Funding is not about merit but about alignment with political or corporate agendas. A scholar’s career depends on pleasing patrons, just as a politician’s survival depends on serving donors. Independent thought is tolerated only when it is harmless.
I could never fit into political, disgusting academia. It’s something I can’t do and cannot live with
Equal chance, not caring whether Catholic, Jew or Protestant. No adulation. No prestigious circles. No confomism, clintelism. Money redistributed by a contribution. No, scholars’ books are something I must go trough but I must leave the imagination of all of those sociopathological phenomena behind.
I won’t lie. I have been communicating with tons of scholars and I didn’t get their culture. Surprisingly, some of the brave scholar get mine. What an accident?
So what is better – put your photographs inside your book or be just a politician who just happen to explore science.
Leave a Reply