This thread discusses the Content article: Scholarly standards and activism

After reading this post and the linked article I can't help but wonder if the deployment of "Truth and freedom of thought are things we are meant to be championing" doesn't at least implicitly create a space of liberal political discourse, whereby the equality of speaking positions is assumed through claims to 'truthful' inquiry. In other words, as Eschle and Maiguashca outline in their article in that issue, doesn't the reproduction of the cannon, and the desire to make all voices heard for open debate, effectively marginalize oppositional and contesting voices through sheer numbers, repetition and volume.

In the classroom, I think it is naive to assume that we would encounter a democratic and representative spectrum of voices in both our own and our student's work, and that part of the challenge of the classroom is the dissemination of knowledge against the litany of inundated voices we all hear everyday in the press, the home and public discourse more generally. While I wholeheartedly agree with the need for standards in argumentation, the ability to intelligently, persuasively and thoughtfully develop an argument is hardly something that only occurs in academic practice. In other words, in my own teaching, I try to encourage the idea that confusion, frustration, impotence and apathy are normal and everyday responses to the issues of International Relations, and to try and treat every idea and proposition as equal already implies a political position about the role of contestation and disagreement in thought. This is not to say that I imply to students what they should think about topics or ideas, rather that truth, justice and impartiality employ a range of emotional and discursive tactics which may need to be disrupted rather than replaced or equalized.

I am wrestling with these issues as I thinking of putting together a paper for the ISA in New York, as the expectation of the space created by alternative voices seems to imply a consistency and clarity that is deployable in the same structures and discourses of the university. After my first encounter with some of the NASPIR members in San Francisco, and the mandate "open to anyone, who endorses its stated purpose of promoting politics and international relations scholarship which supports non-violent action against oppression" I am conflicted because my research into anti-capitalist protest, and especially my fieldwork in Korea, often directly encountered a range of 'violent' tactics, upon which I would not feel politically comfortable to dismiss out of hand. Moreover, the employed masculinities of political protest rely on a range of ideas, positions, traditions and beliefs, that complicate the assumptions about liberal and democratic political discourse and scholarship.

If the activist/academic boundaries need to be complicated, the distancing subjectivity of the expectations of 'knowledge' should, in certain cases, lead to impediments to knowledge and learning. In my own teaching, especially in classes that deal with North/South issues directly, I find it important to demonstrate the relative incommensurability on what should be basic issues like consistency in trade practices or issues of food production. My favorite student comment came at the end of a course last year, when a student spoke up in the final class and questioned whether any dialogue was actually taking place between Northern institutions focused on development and the people they were supposedly assisting. I think that in the efforts to develop and articulate the experiences (politics) of International Relations of which most people here seem to be proposing and undertaking, still is trapped by the conventions of first speaking to the canon (our theories and explanations) and secondly exploring our practices as case study/interview/survey/example. In that prioritization, I believe we limit the complexity and complications of our activism for the smooth democractic spaces of academic discourse.

After reading this post and the linked article I can't help but wonder if the deployment of "Truth and freedom of thought are things we are meant to be championing" doesn't at least implicitly create a space of liberal political discourse,

Not necessarily. There will be many different views on how to champion truth and freedom of thought and I would want there to be a plurality. You in your post are trying to do that.

whereby the equality of speaking positions is assumed through claims to 'truthful' inquiry.

Not in my view – a speaking position’s equality has to be earned through argument and evidence etc.

In other words, as Eschle and Maiguashca outline in their article in that issue, doesn't the reproduction of the cannon,

I am not in favour of the specification of an agreed canon and its mere reproduction. What constitutes the canon must be open to dispute and contestation

and the desire to make all voices heard for open debate, effectively marginalize oppositional and contesting voices through sheer numbers, repetition and volume.

Only if it is handled badly

In the classroom, I think it is naive to assume that we would encounter a democratic and representative spectrum of voices in both our own and our student's work,

Agreed, and I don’t make that assumption. Such an encounter requires careful preparation and multiple versions of what constitutes such an encounter

and that part of the challenge of the classroom is the dissemination of knowledge against the litany of inundated voices we all hear everyday in the press, the home and public discourse more generally.

Agreed

While I wholeheartedly agree with the need for standards in argumentation, the ability to intelligently, persuasively and thoughtfully develop an argument is hardly something that only occurs in academic practice.

Agreed, and I hope it did not seem that I thought that academia had exclusive claim

In other words, in my own teaching, I try to encourage the idea that confusion, frustration, impotence and apathy are normal and everyday responses to the issues of International Relations,

I do not think that in teaching we should be trying to tell students what to think, but instead helping them to think for themselves. I do not think you should be encouraging the adoption of specific ideas that you happen to hold. I would be in favour of your encouraging them to engage with that idea, and considering counter-arguments. Our advocacy of ideas should be kept outside the classroom in our publications etc.

and to try and treat every idea and proposition as equal

All ideas are not equal – some are better grounded in argument, evidence, etc. and in the classroom I emphasise that there are profound disagreements about which are better grounded.

already implies a political position about the role of contestation and disagreement in thought. This is not to say that I imply to students what they should think about topics or ideas,

Good – cf above

rather that truth, justice and impartiality employ a range of emotional and discursive tactics which may need to be disrupted rather than replaced or equalized.

May indeed, or may not.

I am wrestling with these issues as I thinking of putting together a paper for the ISA in New York,

Please do, I have an excellent panel that could accommodate one more paper.

as the expectation of the space created by alternative voices seems to imply a consistency and clarity that is deployable in the same structures and discourses of the university.

I am not sure that it necessarily does. And I do wonder about your conception of the structures and discourses of the university which are much more diverse and indeed better thought out than you have suggested thus far.

After my first encounter with some of the NASPIR members in San Francisco, and the mandate "open to anyone, who endorses its stated purpose of promoting politics and international relations scholarship which supports non-violent action against oppression" I am conflicted because my research into anti-capitalist protest, and especially my fieldwork in Korea, often directly encountered a range of 'violent' tactics, upon which I would not feel politically comfortable to dismiss out of hand.

The commitment to non-violence, however defined, has been a core commitment of Naspir which I have always defended. That is not the same thing as saying that I think that physical violence is necessarily illegitimate (and that is also not Naspir’s agreed position), but that a commitment to a politics of non-violence however (and variously – some versions of non-violence to some will be the defence of structural violence to others) defined is the best way forward for this group of scholars. One reason is that otherwise humanitarian intervention, just war, counter-terrorist assassination, counter-insurgency could be within our remit – reactionary and imperial realists and liberals could see this as a place for their advocacy of violence. Another is that when one is advocating change, anti-imperialism and so on, it is extremely dangerous choice to endorse violence – expect delegitimation, surveillance and indeed incarceration. And beyond that, I am glad that Naspir has retained its commitment to non-violence, something I can wholeheartedly support.

Moreover, the employed masculinities of political protest rely on a range of ideas, positions, traditions and beliefs, that complicate the assumptions about liberal and democratic political discourse and scholarship.

Again, my position is not an exclusive endorsement of liberal democratic perspectives, though I do think that there are valuable things about liberalism and democracy that should not be jettisoned.

If the activist/academic boundaries need to be complicated,

Yes, that complication and plurality is a healthy sign

the distancing subjectivity of the expectations of 'knowledge' should, in certain cases, lead to impediments to knowledge and learning.

Perhaps and perhaps not. Certainly such possible problems need to be considered.

In my own teaching, especially in classes that deal with North/South issues directly, I find it important to demonstrate the relative incommensurability on what should be basic issues like consistency in trade practices or issues of food production. My favorite student comment came at the end of a course last year, when a student spoke up in the final class and questioned whether any dialogue was actually taking place between Northern institutions focused on development and the people they were supposedly assisting.

My concern about that is that it seems you were pleased because the student ended up seeing it the way you see it. I am at my most uncomfortable in class when students agree with me.

I think that in the efforts to develop and articulate the experiences (politics) of International Relations of which most people here seem to be proposing and undertaking, still is trapped by the conventions of first speaking to the canon (our theories and explanations) and secondly exploring our practices as case study/interview/survey/example.

I think it is true that the emphasis is more on engagement with scholarly debates than in focus on the empirical out there, and I’ve long argued for that shift in balance, as I argued elsewhere in the article of mine to which you are responding.

In that prioritization, I believe we limit the complexity and complications of our activism

Agreed

for the smooth democractic spaces of academic discourse.

Not so sure that spaces are that smooth though.

Thanks for your thoughts and please do get an ISA paper title and abstract to me, sooner the better