Editorial Demystifying the bubble

Author: [no author name found]

This issue's impassioned opinion piece titled "The perils of Club Midd," in which Adam Irish '09 indicts the "Middlebury bubble" for instilling in its inhabitants "egotism, improvidence and avarice," certainly got us talking. However, before we could even begin to address Irish's specific examples of institutional bloat, we found ourselves facing a much more fundamental struggle - how to define the "bubble" in the first place.

Of course, we have all heard the term thrown around by various members of our extended community. Professors and parents sometimes cite it when bemoaning our ignorance of national issues or important life skills; enthusiastic first-years, not bothering to lock their doors, might praise its idyll just as frustrated seniors are blaming it for a lack of viable dating options. These distinct interpretations of bubble culture all carry connotations of isolation and insulation, but we each decide whether we define such terms economically, socially, geographically or through some particular combination of those factors. Irish chooses to see our privileged separation from the outside world as part of a dangerous recipe for corporate greed, while others may choose to focus instead on the inherent benefits of a haven where we are free to concentrate on our studies and extracurricular pursuits.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember when discussing the bubble phenomenon is that it is by no means unique to Middlebury; indeed, the entire system of higher education in America - particularly at liberal arts colleges, where vocational training is considered anathema to the guiding principle of intellectual exploration - is based on the construction of artificial societies, populated solely by academically inclined 18- to 23-year olds, which do not intend to represent the real world. Middlebury and its peer institutions, then, are not in the business of breeding "Masters of the Universe," just as they are not primarily designed (much as we might like to think they are) to produce socially or environmentally conscious graduates.

The precise benefit of the bubble atmosphere lies in the room it allows for personal development. Some students may manipulate that freedom toward malicious ends - they may "ride the Panther," and draw the rightful wrath of critics like Irish - while others will admirably seize the opportunity to effect positive changes at Middlebury and beyond. The bottom line is that, when we are liberated from many of the daily responsibilities faced by those on the outside, we have the luxury of succeeding and failing on our own terms; this, it seems, is the defining characteristic of the bubble, at Middlebury and elsewhere.

And what of the notion that, in such trying times, these collegiate bubbles are poised to pop? Call us na've, but we think it will take more than wide-ranging budget cuts to dampen the ingenuity of Middlebury students and their peers. So, while we cannot agree with Irish in "welcom[ing] the recession," we do look forward to seeing students' innovative approaches to saving money - let's call it the upside of the bubble - at work across the nation.