Thank you for this thoughtful message and the key insights which you raise. It mirrors other debates over the years in various fields, e.g. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/20/much-third-world-quarterlys-editorial-board-resigns-saying-controversial-article and the Bostok Affair https://www.ucl.ac.uk/volcanoscope/files/Eruption%20Precursors%20and%20Forecasts/Code%20of%20Practice%20Debate%20(Guadeloupe)%201977-79.pdf
A recent way in which disaster research has tried to engage in these discussions while moving forward constructively is https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/power-prestige-forgotten-values-a-disaster
There have also been various previous discussions on disaster research ethics, such as:1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03534-z2. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00459-w3. http://www.ijmed.org/articles/379/4. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04691-0_165. https://jamba.org.za/index.php/jamba/article/view/120/314
So, absolutely, let's learn from outside of disaster studies while taking on board your own reflections. Thank you,
Ilan
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 04:26:52 PM GMT+1, Jessica Field <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a recent subscriber and just wanted to share an interesting (and heated!) IR/security debate that has snowballed on Twitter in recent days. It's not directly disaster-related, but it raises important questions for radical scholarship as a whole... and I'd be interested to hear any thoughts (and thanks to Maureen for encouraging me to post this here)!
Last summer, Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Monpetit published an article in Security Dialogue: "Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School". https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0967010619862921
In short, these two scholars have taken a decolonial approach to dissect the foundational assumptions behind securitization theory/speech acts theory, highlighting (as the title suggests) its inherent civilisationalism, methodological whiteness and antiblack racism. They also argue that this scholarship - developed mainly by Copenhagen School scholars Buzan and Waever in the late 90s - is built on the back of other scholarship that contains racist/civilisationalist ideas: Arendt, Durkheim, Hobbes etc. Howell and Richter-Monpetit do actually state that their critique is not a personal one against these scholars as individuals, but is rather a take-down of the racist knowledge-foundations that the scholarship is built on.
It's an interesting article and offers some thought-provoking arguments about how we need to look differently (decolonially) at the foundations of paradigm-shaping theories in IR... and of course elsewhere in scholarship. But the most interesting/concerning thing is how it has enraged much of the IR academic world and the Twittersphere. See the hashtags: #securitizationtheory #SDscandal to start.
Buzan and Waever published an aggressive reply to the article last week, making very personal attacks against Howell and Richter-Monpetit's academic integrity - basically accusing them via Security Dialogue (and on Twitter) of academic malpractice, among other things (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0967010620916153?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles.1).
Another scholar cited in Howell and Richter-Monpetit's article, Lene Hansen, also published a sharp rebuttal. See: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0967010620907198
On Twitter, Howell and Richter-Monpetit have been attacked left, right and centre: for the integrity of their scholarship, for their suggestions that securitization theory is racist, and also for apparently jumping on the band-waggon of anti-black racism critique etc. There has been some support coming through for them too - in terms of general solidarity in the face of such aggressive criticism, and in defence of their arguments.
I've been absorbed by it all over the last few days and wondered what everyone else thinks?
Ali Howell used to be a lecturer of mine nearly a decade ago and is a great scholar, so to see this level of personal vitriol is disturbing. I am not an IR scholar so can't offer much comment on the details of the debates. But to me, Buzan and Waever's response primarily serves to shut down debate rather than enrich it. And tone of discussions embodies what I fear most as an (early career) academic - the aggressive nature of academic Twitter/public discourse, particularly on certain themes: feminism, race, and also climate change.* It also feels like this kind of reaction to a peer-reviewed piece in a top journal dissuades less confident/established scholars from pitching paradigm-challenging critiques of established theory - especially using feminist and decolonial methodologies.
I'd be interested to hear what you all think - whether it's on these particular articles, or the possibilities to critique academic knowledge / foundational theories in the age of social media, or anything.
Warmly,
Jessica
*These thoughts have already benefitted from discussions with Maureen, Punam and Virginie on the issue - thanks very much! Glad to be able to share thoughts here, too.
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the RADIX list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=RADIX&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/RADIX, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the RADIX list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=RADIX&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/RADIX, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
