JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST Archives


EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST Archives

EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST Archives


EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST Home

EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST Home

EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST  August 2004

EUROPEAN-SOCIOLOGIST August 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: "Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South African Case"

From:

David Seddon <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

David Seddon <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:35:00 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (330 lines)

Oh Baruch - 'first of all ... Then we'll can talk'. Are you really waiting
for us?

As you will almost certainly know, there has been a massive and well
organised campaign  of systematic criticism in Britain (in the universities
as elsewhere) of the US-British intervention in Iraq, both before the
intervention, during it and subsequently. Within the Labour party itself
many have spoken out; within the universities many of us have organised and
participated in workshops and seminars criticising our government strongly.
This has resulted in major revelations of incompetence by the intelligence
services, over-politicisation of the assessment of the threat posed by Iraq,
deception of the public and continuing blindness to the folly of the
enterprise. Individuals and institutions known to have supported the
intervention have been roundly criticised. 

The intervention in Iraq has lasted over a year and many of us continue to
agitate and criticise. But the Israeli military occupation and settlement of
the West Bank and Gaza has lasted nearly 40 years! Many individuals have
spoken out, certainly, but the institutional establishment of Israel has
failed to condemn this illegal and often brutal occupation. Indeed, all too
often it has effectively supported it. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Baruch Kimmerling [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>Sent: 29 July 2004 17:05
>To: David Seddon
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: "Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South 
>African Case"
>
>
>Dear David:
>First of all let see your British folks organizing an 
>association devoted 
>to boycott British academe and institutions who supported he 
>Anglo-American invasion of Iraq 
>as  test case. Than we'll can talk how to extended you 
>valuable experience 
>on the Israeli case.
>Cheers, Baruch.
>
>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, David Seddon wrote:
>
>> A very interesting piece - as I read it, Alexander 
>eventually suggests the
>> formation of associations of those explicitly opposed to 
>their own state's
>> policies, able to invite and oppose the invitation of 
>foreign academics,
>> according to democratically reached agreement on the part of the
>> associations' members. These associations, one might 
>suggest, could be
>> supported by means of selective boycott and support from 
>outside by those
>> also opposed to the regime's policies. There is nothing to 
>prevent groups of
>> Israeli academics from forming such associations and making 
>their position
>> of a range of issues linked to the Israeli government's 
>policies known
>> publicly and internationally. Those of us currently involved 
>in the academic
>> boycott might well welcome such a development as it would 
>allow a more
>> selective 'smart' institutional boycott.
>> 
>> David seddon
>> 
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Newsletter of the European Sociological Association 
>> >(ESA) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> >Of Baruch Kimmerling
>> >Sent: 28 July 2004 22:19
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >Subject: "Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South 
>> >African Case"
>> >
>> >
>> >An interesting perspective by one
>> >of South Africa's most radical activist intellectuals (located 
>> >to the far left of
>> >the ANC).
>> >
>> >Perspectives on the Professions
>> >Vol. 15, No. 1, Fall 1995
>> >"Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South African Case"
>> >Neville Alexander, University of Cape Town
>> >
>> >In the mid-eighties, the academic community in South Africa 
>was rocked
>> >by a totally unexpected debate concerning the morality and 
>> >purpose of an
>> >academic boycott of South African universities (and other tertiary
>> >educational institutions). The debate began with the 
>"O'Brien Affair".
>> >Connor Cruise O'Brien, the Irish academic and politician, in 
>> >South Africa
>> >at the invitation of the University of Cape Town, declared that the
>> >academic boycott, viewed in isolation, was ineffective 
>("Mickey Mouse
>> >stuff" in his words !) and that a much more comprehensive 
>> >approach to the
>> >isolation of the "racist Pretoria regime" was called for 
>> >(without shooting
>> >oneself in the foot, as it were).
>> >
>> >Even at the best of times, such a "complex" message would have been
>> >difficult to communicate. Given the insurrectionist climate 
>> >among the black
>> >youth of South Africa at the time and the defensiveness of 
>> >white students
>> >and some academics, the messenger and the message were bound to be
>> >misunderstood. O'Brien was interpreted as saying that the 
>equivocating
>> >university authorities who had invited him were "good guys". 
>> >The students,
>> >convinced that the authorities were all unreconstructed 
>> >"baddies" in league
>> >with the evil empire of the apartheid regime, responded 
>with militant
>> >rejection. The university authorities and most of the faculty 
>> >agonized in the
>> >cross fire.
>> >
>> >Whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular event, the debate
>> >expanded until the entire intellectual community of South Africa was
>> >involved to one degree or another. We can, I believe, derive 
>> >some useful
>> >observations from these events and their aftermath.
>> >
>> >The Trajectory of Boycott
>> >
>> >States usually justify application of economic and diplomatic 
>> >sanctions as
>> >an alternative to settling international disputes by violence. 
>> >Inevitably, the
>> >cultural boycott of the target state follows and the academic 
>> >boycott is,
>> >clearly, a subset of the cultural. This was the trajectory in 
>> >the South African
>> >case. The national liberation organizations saw the isolation 
>> >of the South
>> >African regime as one of an ensemble of strategies which would 
>> >compel it
>> >to move towards the negotiating table. In retrospect, I have 
>> >no doubt that
>> >they were right.
>> >
>> >It is, therefore, all the more interesting that they seemed 
>> >not to notice that
>> >differences in the terrain of struggle might require different 
>> >approaches.
>> >For example, it was possible to make out a case if merely at 
>> >the level of
>> >propaganda for so-called universal mandatory economic sanctions as a
>> >foolproof tactic for strangling the regime into submission. 
>> >But, even at the
>> >time, many publicists in the labor movement pointed out that, 
>> >because it
>> >inevitably increased already severe unemployment, such a 
>> >"total boycott"
>> >would have devastating consequences for the urban and rural 
>> >poor. A "total
>> >boycott" assumed that human beings-working people especially-were
>> >willing instruments in a political game played by elites that 
>> >had absolute
>> >control over them.
>> >
>> >At the time, such control seemed not to exist; events since 
>> >have, I believe,
>> >confirmed that it did not. "Total boycott," though popular as 
>> >slogan, was in
>> >practice completely at variance with the immediate interests of most
>> >people. The demand that "the people" be "willing" to accept 
>> >more suffering
>> >for a little while longer (Bishop Tutu) is a textbook example 
>> >of middle-
>> >class presumption and of the remoteness of the "leaders" from their
>> >"flock"!
>> >
>> >Long-term Assessment
>> >
>> >This observation is important because it suggests a 
>longer-term view,
>> >planning the boycott on the assumption of victory. The fatal 
>> >malaise of the
>> >South African economy at present is in no small measure the 
>> >result of the
>> >cumulative distortions occasioned by, among other causes, sanctions
>> >against the apartheid state, including the academic boycott. 
>> >If the purpose
>> >of sanctions were purely destructive, any sanction could be 
>> >justified. The
>> >boycott would then be the economic equivalent of modern warfare's
>> >saturation bombing. But destruction is hardly ever the stated 
>> >purpose of
>> >those who advocate sanctions. Indeed, choosing sanctions rather than
>> >warfare implies a constructive, albeit punitive, approach 
>to relations
>> >between nations. The advocates of sanctions are necessarily 
>> >interested in
>> >resuming normal relations either with a reformed, if 
>> >chastened, regime or
>> >with a new regime (the former opposition).
>> >
>> >In South Africa, the debate over the academic boycott was 
>> >between broadly
>> >liberal academics, on the one hand, and radical academics and 
>> >activists, on
>> >the other. The liberals opposed the academic boycott 
>> >completely, arguing
>> >both that it transgressed the principles of academic freedom 
>> >and university
>> >autonomy and that it would shut off essential communication between
>> >South African scholars and their international counterparts. 
>> >South Africa
>> >would suffer a catastrophic drop in academic standards and an 
>> >erosion of
>> >its economic and technological capacity. The more radical 
>> >groups insisted
>> >that the academic boycott was correct in principle but that it 
>> >should not
>> >punish the robber and the robbed at the same time. They argued for a
>> >selective boycott rather than the simpler but impracticable 
>> >"total boycott"
>> >(the slogan of the students in particular).
>> >
>> >The practical problem was obvious. Those favoring an 
>academic boycott
>> >had no way of monitoring the comings and goings of foreign scholars.
>> >They could not prevent racist and even fascist scholars from 
>> >teaching or
>> >doing research at some of the institutions concerned.
>> >
>> >Debate over the boycott also raised deep questions concerning 
>> >the morality
>> >and political point of only excluding scholars coming from 
>outside the
>> >country when the majority of scholars who supported apartheid 
>> >were South
>> >Africans employed by the very institutions that were to 
>carry out the
>> >boycott.
>> >
>> >Consensus
>> >
>> >Eventually, consensus was attained, at least in the more 
>left-leaning
>> >academic community. All anti-apartheid academics and intellectual
>> >activists should band together in academic staff associations 
>> >explicitly
>> >opposed to the regime and committed to the eradication of apartheid.
>> >These associations would be mandated, as appropriate, to 
>invite foreign
>> >scholars to South African universities or to prevent them from 
>> >coming. The
>> >boycott should not be a suicidal weapon cutting off all 
>communication
>> >between the progressive academic community in the rest of 
>the world and
>> >ourselves living in South Africa.
>> >
>> >In my view, this understanding came too late. Some of the scholarly
>> >backwardness of South Africa today is, I am sure, due to the 
>> >marooning of
>> >much of our scholarship in the 1980s. Take, for example, my 
>own field,
>> >education: we were almost completely ignorant of the work that 
>> >was being
>> >done in the 1980s on the question of multilingual pedagogy in such
>> >countries as Australia, Belgium, and Canada, not to mention 
>> >India, Nigeria,
>> >Tanzania, and the like. Similar examples from all fields are 
>> >legion, the
>> >direct result of an indiscriminate academic boycott. The 
>> >boycott was too
>> >blunt an instrument for too long.
>> >
>> >The question of academic freedom was treated as an aspect of the
>> >democratic principle of free expression. Many scholars 
>argued that the
>> >universities could not luxuriate in the illusion that they 
>were somehow
>> >different from the rest of the country's institutions. The 
>> >response that the
>> >academic boycott was a form of self-censorship was countered by the
>> >question why the universities had not taken a principled 
>stand against
>> >censorship before the O'Brien Affair spotlighted the issue 
>in the mid-
>> >1980s. In short, the self-seeking and elitist nature of the 
>> >"pure" liberal
>> >argument for academic freedom and university autonomy was 
>exposed and,
>> >at least for a while, laid to rest.
>> >
>> >Final Assessment
>> >
>> >I have no doubt that when a state deliberately and 
>> >systematically abuses
>> >human rights, a case can be made for academic boycott as part of an
>> >ensemble of punitive strategies to compel the state to right 
>> >the situation.
>> >But sanctions and boycotts are always two-edged weapons. They should
>> >never be instituted without careful consideration of the 
>> >likely effect on
>> >those whom they are supposed to help. Due attention should be 
>> >given to the
>> >probable effects of a successful campaign so that the 
>boycott does not
>> >become the proverbial cure worse than the disease.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>
>
>  Baruch Kimmerling 
>  33 Burbank Drive 
>  Toronto, Ontario  M2K 1N1
>  Canada
>  Phone: (416) 250 5828
>  Fax:   (416) 250 0479 
> 
>   "Those who can make you believe absurdities,
>    can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager