Blimey David. I used the poem in a particular context, to make a 
specific point. I was aware that there are different versions, that 
Niemoller is not a hero of the left etc. If you genuinely can't see what 
point it was making, I see no sense in my trying to explain it to you 
further.
best wishes
J.


On 15/10/2012 06:24, David Fryer wrote:
> Hi John,
> Thanks for engaging in discussion.
> You cite a version of a poem widely attributed to Pastor Martin
> Niemöller. I am interested in why you cited that particular one out of
> the many various versions there are, how different groups are positioned
> within the various versions and thus different interests served and what
> is accomplished for whom by citing it as you have on the list.
> The quote itself is controversial as I expect you know. Historian Harold
> Marcuse maintains a fascinating web resource about the various versions:
> http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm
> It is widely agreed that “in 1931 Niemöller became a pastor in a wealthy
> Berlin suburb. As a German nationalist he initially supported Hitler,
> but as the Nazis began to interfere in church affairs, he moved into
> opposition. In 1934 Niemöller founded first the
> /Pfarrernotbund/(Pastors' Emergency League), then the /Bekennende
> Kirche/ (Confessing Church), a branch of the German Protestant
> (Lutheran) Church. In 1937 he was arrested because of his outspoken
> sermons, and sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In 1941 he was
> moved to Dachau, where he stayed until the end of the war”.
> Niemöller visited Dachau later in 1945 after the war had ended and
> according to Harold Marcuse, Niemöller’s “diary entry about that visit
> and some subsequent speeches he gave imply that that visit triggered the
> thought that became this famous quotation” Pastor Niemöller himself
> later had problems remembering which versions he had used when and which
> groups were mentioned but there is evidence from records of speeches in
> 1946 where Niemöller included: communists; the incurably sick; Jews /or/
> Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech); people in countries
> occupied by Nazi Germany. Later he added Trade Unions and Social
> Democrats. Later still he added schools, the press and the Church
> (sometimes just protestants, sometimes Catholics too). We should also
> remember that in the Holocaust gays, lesbians, Roma and other groups
> were also systematically murdered but do not get mentioned as amongst
> those who were ‘come for’.
> In early versions Niemöller is reported as talking about “doing nothing”
> because he was “a little uneasy” rather than not speaking out. The
> content emerged first in speeches and was only later rendered as a prose
> poem. It was of course originally in German.
> It is also worth noting that versions of the poem are also used to serve
> the interests of the right e.g. “Gov. Scott uses Holocaust quote to
> defend Romney: Governor says capitalism should always be defended” See:
> http://www.local10.com/news/politics/Gov-Scott-uses-Holocaust-quote-to-defend-Romney/-/1895020/8507698/-/ckdqwsz/-/index.htmlMarcuse
> also reports the following version: “Fox News star and talk radio host
> Laura Ingraham said (roughly) the following (note: this was not very
> articulate, although she appears to be reading from a script): “/First
> they came for the rich, and I did not speak out because I was not rich,
> Then they confiscated the property owners, Then they took away our right
> to bear arms, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't armed/.”
> I have gone into this detail to emphasise that although iconic versions
> have been pinned up on countless office pin boards, the ‘quotation’ has
> a social history, has been socially constructed and reconstructed many
> times over over many years and differing versions privilege the
> interests of differing groups. To interpret the poem as a text, one
> needs to locate the text within a network of other texts and events. The
> quotation should not be taken for granted as obvious ‘truth’ or wisdom
> but as a socially constituted text in need of critcal discourse analysis.
>  From my standpoint, the quoted version, and other versions too,
> position individual persons as responsible for dreadful things happening
> (anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, Fascism etc.) because the individuals
> lack courage, stand by, are lazy or idle or preoccupied with less
> important things etc. It is in other words it is yet another inscription
> of psy (providing individualistic and psychologistic understandings and
> interventions for what are socially, economically, materially,
> socio-structurally, ideologically constituted). The work of people like
> Daniel Goldhagen has convinced me that not only could the Nazi Holocaust
> NOT have been stopped by individual people speaking out in opposition
> but rather the Nazi Holocaust happening requires one to understand the
> appalling subjective reconstitution of many millions of ordinary German
> people to see Jewish people as evil, dangerous and subhuman.
> Being an inscription of the psy complex no doubt explains in part the
> poem's repeated redeployment. A reading of the version you cite on the
> List could reasonably be taken to position those individuals who are
> ‘not speaking out’ against those ‘coming for’ communists, socialists or
> trades unionists because not from the left, lacking courage, standing
> by, lazy or idle or preoccupied with less important things like debate.
> This seems to not only to misrepresent but also to miss important points
> made during the discussions so far but also to function to silence those
> who offer critique (of protest which reinscribes individualising,
> psychologising and male privileging) through a discursive manoeuvre
> positioning those who engage in critique as reactionary and as complicit
> with oppression.
> David
> *From:* John Cromby <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Friday, 12 October 2012, 20:06
> *Subject:* Re: Critically processing Ian Parker’s 'suspension' -
> supporting Ian's predicament
>
> "First they came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
>
> Then they came for the socialists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
>
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left to speak for me."
>
> J.
>
>
> On 12/10/2012 10:31, David Fryer wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> I value your participation in debate so thank you for posting but I
>> ask you to reflect whether it is helpful to all parties in the dispute
>> to speculate the way you have done in your email about what "seems
>> highly likely" (to you) in relation to "why he (Ian) has been
>> suspended" especially when you mention other people by name in
>> connection with that. I suggest we limit discussion to critical and
>> community psychology issues on this list rather than speculate about
>> individuals.
>> David
>> *From:* John Cromby mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* Friday, 12 October 2012, 18:36
>> *Subject:* Re: Critically processing Ian Parker’s 'suspension' -
>> supporting Ian's predicament
>>
>> Having forwarded comments from colleagues on other lists, and from
>> Dave Harper, I will now add my own.
>>
>> Although we do not know the full story, it seems highly likely - given
>> the snippets that are contained in the various emails being
>> circulated, given Ian's politics which vocally include support for
>> unions, given that Christine Vie is a UCU representative at Ian's
>> institution, given that Manchester Trades Council are supporting both
>> of them, given that Ian's suspension was triggered by his complaining
>> about secrecy and control at MMU, given that Ian's complaints about
>> secrecy and control happened at around the same time as Christine's
>> victimisation - that Ian himself was already supporting Christine, and
>> that this is at least in part why he has been suspended. Likewise, it
>> is known that Erica Burman is also being victimised by MMU and as a
>> consequence is currently away from work ill with stress. David's
>> analysis of the gendering of this situation is therefore simplistic in
>> the extreme.
>>
>> In a later email David says that he is in solidarity with Ian and
>> other trades unionists but that he wants to find ways to support them
>> that do not reinscribe individualism or reinforce male privilege.
>> Great - what are they? David doesn't say, I have no idea myself, and
>> no-one else has come forward to suggest them. So should we sit around
>> waiting for these new ways of resisting to emerge, whilst the
>> victimisation of Ian, Christine and Erica continues? Or, whilst
>> recognising the inadequacies and compromises that accompany *any*
>> political action, should we offer our unequivocal and public support
>> in whatever ways are possible?
>>
>> List members will of course make their own minds up with respect to
>> these questions. My own view is that counterposing attempts to
>> publicly support Ian, Christine and Erica against support for some
>> abstract notion of a 'critical project' is deeply unhelpful.
>> Supporting Ian does not prevent us from also supporting Christine and
>> Erica. Supporting Ian does not prevent us from also working to
>> challenge individualism, patriarchy and all of the other evils of
>> neoliberalism. In his own work Ian has done significantly more than
>> many of us to challenge these very problems. It is deeply ironic that
>> they are now mobilised here in order to question attempts to support him.
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 00:38, David Fryer wrote:
>>> Thanks Jacqui,
>>> To clarify . . . I am in solidarity with Ian (and with all trades
>>> unionists, whistle blowers, activists etc. who find themselves
>>> subjected to institutional violence) but I want to find ways to
>>> deploy that solidarity effectively, not as gesture, and to do so
>>> without undermining the wider 'critical project' e.g. without
>>> reinscribing individualism and psychologism or reinforcing male
>>> privilege. If we on this list can work with other critical allies to
>>> find ways to do this, we and others engaged in the wider critical
>>> project can end up stronger after this attack on some of us than
>>> before it. In my view if we support Ian by undermining the critical
>>> project, we collectively end up weaker whatever the outcome for Ian
>>> individually.
>>> David
>>>
>>> *From:* jacqui lovell mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 11 October 2012, 1:13
>>> *Subject:* Re: Critically processing Ian Parker’s 'suspension'
>>>
>>> I did wonder why I was dragging my feet to support Ian's predicament,
>>> I thought it was because he was not in a life threatening situation
>>> but what you say makes a lot of sense to me David, so thanks for
>>> unpicking this and giving me food for thought!
>>> Jacqui L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:21:30 +0100
>>> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Critically processing Ian Parker’s 'suspension'
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> The widespread reactions to reports of Ian Parker having been
>>> ‘suspended’ by MMU make critically interesting reading. It seems
>>> worthwhile to critically process the ways Ian’s ‘suspension’ has
>>> become taken up, whose interests are being promoted in that taking up
>>> and, most importantly, the implications for the bigger ‘critical
>>> project’ for which Ian and others have been working.
>>> Although no statement by either MMU or Ian has been made available,
>>> many – commenting by email or by elaborating their reasons for
>>> signing a petition - have positioned what has happened/ is happening
>>> as an attack, variously, on “psychologists”; on “social
>>> psychologists”; on “theoretical psychologists”; on “critical
>>> psychologists”; on “intellectuals”; on “dissenting voices”; on
>>> “Radical voices in the Academy”; on“academic freedom”; and “trades
>>> unionists everywhere.” Unsettlingly often, the domain positioned as
>>> under attack is the domain championed independently by the commentator.
>>> Whilst, with neoliberalism and philistinism in the ascendancy, it is
>>> understandable to be concerned about the consequences of what is
>>> happening for the silencing of critique, from a critical standpoint
>>> the leap to an over-simple problematisation, in the sense of
>>> construction of the problem and thus how it is to be addressed,
>>> itself calls for critical processing, more so if over-simple
>>> problematisation leads to over-simple or counter-productive forms of
>>> resistance. If commentators really position Ian’s suspension as a
>>> manoeuvre to silence critique, positioning Ian as “one of the most
>>> respected and influential scholars in contemporary critical
>>> psychology” or as an “outstanding scholar, an inspiring teaching and
>>> a passionate supporter of social justice” etc., hardly seems likely
>>> to encourage the silencers to reinstate him. If over-simple
>>> problematisation in itself leads to actions which undermine critique
>>> – see below - it is even more problematic.
>>> In working critically most of us assume that with which we are trying
>>> to engage is complex and multi-faceted constituted and maintained by
>>> a number of processes unfolding at once, some independent and some
>>> interconnecting. In the case of an institutional suspension, these
>>> could be expected to include: local institutional politics; the
>>> intellectual colonisation of the Universities by neoliberalism in the
>>> form of new public management apparatuses as articulated (usefully
>>> but problematically in my view) by Lorenz; organisational change as
>>> staff come and go, old alliances fall apart and new alliances form;
>>> newly invigorated management trying out its muscle in relation to
>>> organised labour and other forms of resistance to managerial power,
>>> settling scores etc.; wider forces operating in the discipline to
>>> obliterate not only critique but all forms of non-mainstream psy.
>>> Internationally these, and other forces, are operating in combination
>>> right across public and private Higher Education sectors and it seems
>>> not unlikely that they are operating, to a greater or lesser extent,
>>> in this case too.
>>> An overly simple account of why Ian Parker has been suspended not
>>> only requires an explanation but also leaves us unprepared to
>>> appropriately support Ian or to resist or prevent other assaults on
>>> others. If an important element in institutional suspensions were,
>>> for example, the increasing dominance in HE of new public management
>>> discourses, countering them in terms of ‘academic freedom’ would be
>>> useless since new public management seeks exactly to supplant
>>> discourses of academic professionalism. Positioning institutional
>>> suspension as simply an assault on critique renders invisible the
>>> routine violence of institutional suspensions of others who are not
>>> engaged in high profile critical academic work.
>>> The critically problematic nature of the chorus of opposition to
>>> Ian’s ‘suspension’ becomes even clearerif we reflect upon how Ian is
>>> being positioned as the focus of a cult of celebrity . . . Ian is
>>> positioned as: “a respected and internationally renowned scholar”;
>>> “one of the most respected and influential scholars in the
>>> contemporary critical psychology”; “a major intellectual figure in
>>> theoretical psychology”; “ one of the most innovative scholars of his
>>> time”; an “outstanding scholar, an inspiring teaching and a
>>> passionate supporter of social justice”; “vital for critical
>>> psychology and theoretical psychology across the world”; “an
>>> exceptional scientist, scholar”; “a source of continuous inspiration
>>> and intellectual support”; “an exemplar of ethical and politically
>>> committed practice in psychology”; “one of the most important
>>> intellectuals in the UK”. The critical irony is that the reasons
>>> given for opposition to the ‘suspension’ are individualistic and
>>> psychologistic: in other words reinscribe the psy complex right at
>>> the heart of the protest. Ian is positioned as an ‘outstanding’ and
>>> ‘exceptional’ individual who is ‘innovative’, ‘passionate’,
>>> ‘intellectual’, ‘inspiring’, ‘scholarly’, ‘intellectual’ etc.) Apart
>>> from being critically problematic this positions the suspension and
>>> disappearancing of countless activists who are less respected, less
>>> renowned, less influential, less intellectual, less innovative etc.
>>> etc. as less in need of mass mobilisation.
>>> Most problematic of all, gendered oppression is arguably being
>>> accomplished through the way Ian’s ‘suspension’ is being opposed. In
>>> the original email from China Mills - sub-portions of which are now
>>> being circulated (e.g. via the TU site) - the following was included
>>> "another member of staff at MMU (and another member of the University
>>> and College Union- the UCU), Christine Vie, is also being victimised,
>>> and has been made compulsorily redundant (and there is an ongoing
>>> campaign to defend her)." Although Christine Vie's name appears in
>>> the TU banner headline she is already forgotten in the TU text and
>>> later in other communications about Ian’s ‘suspension’ Christine’s
>>> compulsory redundancy becomes invisible: focus on the
>>> ‘disappearancing’ of a male professor is privileged over the
>>> ‘disappearancing’ of a female lecturer. In another deployment of male
>>> privilege Ian’s ‘suspension’ is attributed to an assault on critique
>>> which, by implication, positions Erica’s (actually very critical)
>>> work as insufficiently critical to warrant suspension. It has been
>>> made difficult to express solidarity with Ian without colluding with
>>> further invisibilisation and thus disappearancing of women engaged in
>>> critique or other resistance and thus further contributing to male
>>> privilege.
>>> The chorus of protest at Ian’s ‘suspension’ compromises the critical
>>> project for which Ian has been / is working. The Establishment does
>>> not need to silence critique if we do it for them. What about some
>>> more critical reflexivity in our attempts to resist institutional
>>> violence?
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
>>> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To
>>> unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
>>> visit the website:
>>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>>> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
>>> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To
>>> unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
>>> visit the website:
>>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
>>> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To
>>> unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
>>> visit the website:
>>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>>
>> --
>> ********************************************************
>> John Cromby
>> Psychology, SSEHS
>> Loughborough University
>> Loughborough, Leics
>> LE11 3TU England UK
>> Tel: 01509 223000
>> Personal webpage:http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
>> ********************************************************
>> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
>> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To
>> unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
>> visit the website:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
>> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To
>> unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
>> visit the website:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>
> --
> ********************************************************
> John Cromby
> Psychology, SSEHS
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough, Leics
> LE11 3TU England UK
> Tel: 01509 223000
> Personal webpage:http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
> ********************************************************
>
> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe
> or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the
> website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>
>
> ___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe
> or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the
> website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK

-- 
*********************************************************
John Cromby
Psychology Division, SSEHS
Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leics
LE11 3TU England
Tel: 01509 223000
Email: [log in to unmask]
Personal webpage: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
Co-Editor, "Subjectivity": www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/
*********************************************************

___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK