Is it the academic, tenured, who has the funded time to be self-reflective and who does not have to worry about exclusion (she is going to be heard; listened to and possibly published). Such a person in endeavouring to ‘tell it how it is’, is privileged enough to indulge herself in the associate aesthetics of a written piece of work; so is she the one who can undermine the status quo and 'tell it how it is'?
Or is it the 'marginal' discourse the one not tenured, (an office/salary) who hasn’t the time or who can’t afford to indulge himself in the luxury of delving into aesthetics (artistic niceties) or epistemology (knowledge debates and subtleties). It is he who is the one who will 'tell it like it is'?
A touch binary this question, I know. However my take on it is - I am uneasy with the latter and the fomer induces a sense of futility. So there.