So anyway, one of my brilliant ideas this semester was to take up some studies, and it was one of the best ideas I have ever had. Turns out that I seem to have a rather natural predilection for sociology and politics, who'd have thunk it... Problem is, fender-bender happened, brain turned to mush, and essays now on the grand poobah of extensions. I am nearly ready to actually start them (after 10 false starts), but the point of academic writing is for it to be a value-neutral piece, and I don't actually think I'm capable of writing an even remotely value-neutral essay!
Is it actually possible to ever write something without inadvertently shoving a great deal of your own interpretation and personality into it? Is it possible to approach a topic, particularly when you have very strong views about said topic, with a completely blank slate? I know that this is probably why we are supposed to read great big chunks of text books that we are not even remotely interested in, but really, what is the point of writing something which is just full of quotes from other people? How on earth does regurgitating the musings of others contribute to the world of academia, and didn't these people gain a profile in the first place for having original ideas?
8.5 years of working in the industry. 6 years of studying. Yet, still this vexes me. Perhaps there are more value-neutral areas where this concept can work a treat (can't really think of any, but that's probably because they don't feature in my thought-train because I am not even remotely interested in studying them!), but for Soc and Pols, I think it is impossible. And frankly, I wouldn't want it to be possible anyway, because I love the fact that I manage to have opinions on pretty much everything and I was always taught that it is a damn good thing to formulate an opinion because apathy is akin to neural laziness.
Except for white chocolate. I have no opinion on it whatsoever, and can take it or leave it...