Resistance to Conformity 

1. What surprised you?

To be honest, I was surprised with the courage of the author to write this essay. At first, I was just expecting a simple and formal essay, however, I was astonished by how the essay was crafted. Every word written by Walwicz in this essay exudes a clear defiance to the patriarchal academic institution. Moreso, I was also surprised the way she aligned herself with Helene Cixous whose feminine writings insists on expressing women experiences. Referencing Foucault by saying “I am Foucault’s disciplined ‘docile body’, the ‘docile body’ within education now”, suggests that she put herself as a subject of the institutional power. The way she repeated the ‘docile body’ stunned me, because for me, it shows that the students within the academic institution are trained to conform and obey conventional formats, citations, and the voices of the authority. However, it is also surprising the ways she said, “The university better think about this now. You better think,” as it suggests that change is coming.

2. What intrigued you?

I was immediately intrigue by the repetition of the word “No” in the title. It immediately stood out for me as it sounds like a refusal, a resistance to yield on formality and expectations. The way the author said the “No” three times sets the tone of urgency and resistance for the whole essay. It made me think and ponder the reasons behind the three “No’s”.  As I started on traversing the depths of the essay, I understand that the three “no” is not simply a compelling start to hook the readers, but a symbol of the author’s rejection, and resistance of the academic expectations, the conventional structures, and of what is traditionally accepted ways of writing in the institution. The “No’s” at the beginning is a way to reject conformities, a glorifying symbol of rebellion, of reluctance, and of bravery to write unconventionally in a world that may not fully welcome it.

3. What disturbed you?

Creativity, by nature, is unconventional and resists rules, however, the university does not reward uncertainty but rewards conformity, and that disturbed me the most. While reading the essay, I was disturbed by how the university view creativity as “chi-chi” which means frivolous, or by definition, according to Cambridge Dictionary, is “trying too hard to be decorated in a stylish or attractive way and therefore having no real style or beauty,” the very opposite of the traditional academic values of logic, discipline, and order. It is also unsettling to know how the university glorify performance over originality. Thus, it is also disturbing how the author said that “Helene Cixous would fail here,” because for me, the fear that even one of the greatest feminist theorists might fail shows how narrow the acceptable boundaries of thought remains in the academic institution.