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
