 |
 |
Hi all Aren’t there two issues here? 1. An analysis of the way in which we talk about “issues” and how tempting it is to draw on language that serves to replicate some of the power structures we see as problematic 2. Whether and how to act in this particular situation I absolutely agree that we should not let fine-grained analysis get in the way of action that “feels right”. I also think we should not attempt to shut-down critical analysis as if it is a form of heresy. All the best Niki Niki Harré Deputy Head (Academic) School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019 Room 657, Human Sciences Bldg, 10 Symonds St Auckland 1142 Phone +64-9-3737599 ext 88512, email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Moloney Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012 11:25 p.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Critically processing Ian Parker’s 'suspension' - supporting Ian's predicament John In your reply below, and in the last paragraph of your previous email, you’ve hit the ethical and political nails straight on their respective heads - and with clear thinking, not to mention common sense. Paul ________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:06:03 +0100 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Critically processing Ian Parker’s 'suspension' - supporting Ian's predicament To: [log in to unmask] "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 <[log in to unmask]><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 clearer if 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 ___________________________________ 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