In the business of theology it is hard not to be controversial - Jurgen Moltmann

Thursday, 31 July 2008

神學博士路遙遙(捌) :: long road to theological doctorate (8)

你適合讀神學博士嗎?  are you suitable for a theological doctorate?

Whether one is suitable for pursuing a theological doctorate involves far more than academic abilities.  The doctoral journey is long, extremely tough, and utterly lonely.  Long because you are to spend several years to focus on resolving one very specific issue.  Tough because you are expected to become a world expert on that specific issue which you study.  Lonely because no one else on Earth would really know what you are doing.  Are you sure you can enjoy this kind of life?  And unless you are prepared never to touch academic work  again after finishing your doctorate, this mode of living will continue beyond your study.

........................................

讀神學博士,有人比喻為跑馬拉松,有人說是攀爬高山,也有人說是三項鐵人。不同的比喻,各有重點,但都指向一些共同的特徵:漫長、艱辛、孤單。

對於讀神學博士的考量,除了如上回所說,要知道自己到底『所為何事』之外,更重要的是認清自己到底是否適合 —— 在能力、性格取向、信仰氣質等各方面,是否能接受甚至享受這種漫長、艱辛、孤單,而且在很多人眼中其實頗為單調的生活。

要思想是否適合,先要明白讀神學博士本身其實是甚麼回事。 非常(過份)簡單握要來說,讀一個神學的研究學位,是用幾年時間,全然投入鑽研一個特定(specific)的神學議題,提出你對那個議題的創見。這跟讀其他人文學科或者社會科學沒有基本分別。

漫長,非單指它的客觀長度,而是主觀的心理時間,因為它需求你長時間專注地探索一個問題。長時間,當然不是指幾天、幾個月,而是幾年全然投入去鑽探、去解決同一個問題。請注意,是要『解決』『一個』問題,不是『思考』『一堆』問題,更不是『學習』一個『範疇』。這段時間裡,無論你做甚麼,讀甚麼,寫甚麼,基本上都是為了解決那一個問題。借用咱們愛丁堡李思敬大師兄引述楊牧谷大大師兄所言,就是要甘於寂寞,專心處理一個問題。任何其它不相關的搞作,只能說是『不務正業』。

艱辛,非單指需要經常長時間工作,以及超乎一般人想像和能耐的勤奮投入(雖然那都是事實),更指那門檻的高度。神學博士學位的基本要求,是你需要在你研究的特定議題(specific topic)上面,成為世界上最頂尖的專家。即是說,世界上不應該、不能夠有第二個人比你更熟悉你要寫的論文。如是,你一是鑽得極深,一是走得超前,最好兩者都是。(這點,起碼在英式和歐陸制度裡面是如此;美國制度對博士論文的要求很不一樣,也許期望也不同。容後再談。)

孤單,非指你天天面壁沒有人跟你聊天沒有社交生活(那只是寂寞而不是孤單),而是嚴格來說,世界上大概(非常可能而且應該)沒有人能夠完全了解你其實在做甚麼。整個過程裡,你要完全獨自面對自己的研究議題,自己搜羅材料,閱讀、分析、寫作、修改、重寫 ... 。

噢,那麼,你的老師呢?實話實說,你的指導老師根本不可能(其實也不應該)完全掌握你的研究內容。他只可能廣義地熟悉你所鑽研的那個大範圍(broader area),但他絕不可能非常 specific 地熟悉你要寫的東西,否則寫這論文的人便應該是他而不是你。甚至可以說,如果你老師對你要研究的特定議題(specific topic)已經掌握通透,那你根本就不能夠用它來做博士研究。(這裡涉及博士指導和博士生兩人的角色,也容後再談。)

你的同學,就算是與你同組的,與你跟著同一位老師的,也不會完全明白你的研究 —— 他們只會大致上知道你的研究涉及甚麼,基本上理解你處理的問題,除了友情的支援之外 (這點當然非常重要),最多只能從外圍、在技術層面給你一點意見。

除了讀博士的過程之外,你還需要想像一下完成博士之後的圖畫。

完成了一個學術研究的博士學位,你多少也會期望自己(或者別人希望你)從事一點跟學術研究和教學有關的工作。(也可說那是正常的出路。)那其實是把讀博士那種漫長、艱辛、孤單的本質延續下去,只是程度可能更大,遭遇的挫敗感可能更強。請誠實面對:你會喜歡嗎?你能抵受嗎?

反過來說,如果你從來不打算甚至根本沒有興趣搞學術,那你更加需要回頭再問自己:你真的應該讀博士嗎?你究竟為甚麼要讀神學博士?

歸根究底,只有享受長時間單獨工作,擅長而且著迷於長時間閱讀、思考、寫作的人,才適合向神學博士的路進發。怕悶的、喜歡集體柴娃娃的,這條路不屬於你。

我也知道有些人,讀博士的過程感到痛苦難耐,決定完成博士以後怎也不再碰學術研究。我覺得他們是在浪費時間,浪費地球資源,根本不應該讀。

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi,

Great to see your article on ThD again.

I've read Kelton Cobb recently and it seems to me u've used him to criticize Tillich that he neglected pop culture, but actually I find the opposite view in Cobb. When I try to find ur comment, all issues prior to this month are not accessible, strange.

What's your plan now?

Alan

Yam 飲者 said...

Hi Alan,

Also good to see you commenting here again. I miss occasional comments from 'fans' like you, you know. (Suffering from identity crisis after completing the doctorate, haha!)

Cobb has a very high view of Tillich and thinks that the latter should have an important position in the theological study of pop culture. I hold to an almost opposite view. I was not using Cobb to critique Tillich. In that previous post, I was actually critiquing both. What I said, in a nutshell, was that (1) Tillich has very limited and peripheral contribution to this endeavour, and (2) any attempt to bend him toward the theological study of pop culture (so Cobb) is futile.

Behind the surface, that post you mentioned was intended to be a more a critique of Cobb's book rather than Tillich, but done quite implicitly.

My post which mentioned both Tillich and Kelton Cobb is here: http://yamje.blogspot.com/2007/08/inevitable-tillich.html

My plan is to survive the hot summer -- which can literally kill. :)

What about you? Ready to go somewhere?

Anonymous said...

Hi Yam,

I've never stopped checking your updates. Just don't want to be too interrupting in your critical moments and I was preoccupied by some essays till last week.

I had only fragmented memory of what u had written on Cobb and good that I can review ur full comment again. I may not have read enough but it occurs to me Cobb's book, and his 1995 article, "Reconsidering the status of popular culture in Tillichs theology of culture", try to defend the common misunderstanding on Tillich's preference to German high culture was a result of his context (which was temporal), ie, he was disappointed by the then Nazi and social nationalism's abuse of pop culture (and emptiness of US pop culture as well). At the very least, according to late Tillich when he emphasized more on the 'questioning' function (rather than 'bearer' of religious substance), Tillich should be more than welcome to use pop culture in this manner.

I'm not trying to start a debate. Just that after my submission of an essay about Tillich's theology of culture, your previous comment crops up in my mind. Your writing is influential :)

I'm having a short summer break in HK. Will u be back to CU to work as a researcher?

Best,
Alan