[csaa-forum] RE: Another attack on CS
Catharine Lumby
catharine.lumby at arts.usyd.edu.au
Tue Aug 1 16:21:50 CST 2006
Hi all
If I can add my belated 20 cents worth to this discussion which I have
been following with great interest:
Thks everyone for such thoughtful and largely productive exchanges. As
someone who researches the subject of how we connect with publics and
tries to do that actively, I think it's critical that we, as a community
of scholars, always keep discussing and encouraging each other to be
ethical in our responses to any perceived attacks. From my perspective,
that means not being overly paranoid or aggressive in our responses to
criticism. But it also means supporting colleagues who are the subject
of popular/public polemics. As many of you will know, it can be
excruciating to deal with the media - and even worse if you suddenly
find yourself the subject of a high-profile piece.
I agree that we need to be open to all kinds of debate. I didnt read the
article as reactionary - I sensed a spirit of engagement in it. But I
also want to reinforce my support of colleagues working in this field -
particularly anyone who felt singled out in the piece, Amanda
particularly. I think we need to work collectively to find a more
strategic position for promoting the very important work we and our
students do.
Best to you all
Catharine Lumby
Media and Communications
University of Sydney
Ien Ang wrote:
> Hi all
>
>It is a pity that Emma Dawson had chosen to single out Amanda Wise's
>call-for-papers text to make her points. Ironically, Amanda is one of
>the few people amongst us who has consistently engaged beyond academia
>in her work, either through public discussion or through collaborations
>with government or community groups. I therefore completely understand
>that she is upset.
>
>In more general terms, I think Mark Davis is right about the need for us
>to think about reasons for the (real or perceived) lack of impact of CS
>perspectives on public debate. In relation to multiculturalism, for
>example, my sense is that one important reason is that we have
>difficulty articulating our 'message' in a context where public opinion
>is so heavily polarised (you are either 'for' or 'against' it). From a
>CS point of view, however, (multicultural) reality is complex and
>contradictory - and in my experience this is a very difficult message to
>convey, both intellectually and politically. Greg Noble and I (and
>others) have tried to communicate this in our recent report for SBS,
>Connecting Diversity: Paradoxes of Multicultural Australia. Talking
>about 'paradoxes' was our way of saying that we should go beyond a
>simple discourse of for/against. Interestingly, Emma Dawson referred to
>this report - positively - in an earlier essay of hers for the New
>Mathilda.
>
>All in all, this whole affair serves to remind us once again that 'the
>public sphere' is a rough, potentially dangerous and often unfair place,
>where many get hurt. We have to be prepared to wear this, and accept
>that engaging within it is hard and risky work.
>
>Ien
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au
>[mailto:csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au] On Behalf Of
>csaa-forum-request at lists.cdu.edu.au
>Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:30 PM
>To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>Subject: csaa-forum Digest, Vol 27, Issue 25
>
>Send csaa-forum mailing list submissions to
> csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> csaa-forum-request at lists.cdu.edu.au
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> csaa-forum-owner at lists.cdu.edu.au
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
>"Re: Contents of csaa-forum digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz (Mark Davis)
> 2. Fwd: [csaa-forum] RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz (Vera Mackie)
> 3. RE: RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz (Amanda Wise)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:43:24 +1000 (EST)
>From: "Mark Davis" <davismr at unimelb.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz
>To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>Message-ID:
> <37350.58.104.99.127.1154090604.squirrel at webmail.unimelb.edu.au>
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
>
>With all due respect to those concerned, I'm not convinced that Emma
>Dawson is making any attempt to 'delegitimise' academic discussion. As
>she
>writes:
>
>
>
>>Lest I be sternly rebuked by fellow students and researchers, let me
>>make
>>
>>
>it clear that I fully >support rigorous scholarship and will vigorously
>defend the right of academics to contribute to >the intellectual
>development of the human race at the most theoretical level. The
>apparently >abstract and often obscure work by researchers in social
>sciences and cultural studies is >essential to the development of ideas.
>
>Nor, as someone suggested, is she suggesting that: 'it is OK for
>academics to engage in abstract theorising, but then says we can't do it
>in relation to this topic.'
>
>Rather, she raises some salient points about the failure of 'theory' in
>public debate, whilst deriding conservative anti-multiculturalism.
>
>There is, I think, a useful and necessary debate to be had about this
>lack of impact. Bewilderingly, from where I sit, even after three
>decades of 'theory' - and of neoliberalism - it is still primarily
>old-fashioned liberals representing progressive positions in public
>debate. While there are plenty of institutional reasons for that, I
>don't think 'we' can blame others for ever. The penultimate para of her
>piece stands both as a defense of our intellectual practice, and as an
>indictment of our relative failure to work the public sphere proper:
>
>
>
>>Australia can ill afford this kind of intellectual segregation: while
>>
>>
>conservatives lament that our >universities are held captive by
>left-wing thought, progressives should also be distressed by >their
>inability to penetrate the public sphere and to counter the often
>destructive and
>ill->informed statements of commentators whose pronouncements could
>easily be destroyed by a >well-researched and clearly written argument.
>
>Disclosure: while I don't know Emma, I do know her work and am one of
>the OzProspect board members who granted her fellowship.
>
>Best wishes for the conference
>Mark
>
>NB: someone earlier made a throwaway point about Emma's belonging to a
>tank whilst criticising them. OzProspect is non-partisan and survives,
>just, on a miniscule budget compared to multimillion dollar partisan
>juggernauts like the CIS. Equivalence? We wish!
>
>M
>
>--
>Mark Davis
>Publishing and Communications Program
>Department of English with Cultural Studies University of Melbourne
>61-3-8344-3349
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:09:31 +1000
>From: Vera Mackie <vmackie at unimelb.edu.au>
>Subject: Fwd: [csaa-forum] RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz
>To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>Message-ID: <411d2285f8f78ce5335b72c8253a330e at unimelb.edu.au>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>It seems to me that there is a constant slippage in this debate.
>The theories we deploy to understand cultural phenomena are one thing.
>The language we use to communicate our conclusions based on testing
>those theories is another thing.
>It's quite possible to deploy the insights of our favourite theorists,
>but to choose how we communicate this.
>This could be the choice between 'quotidian' or 'everyday' as we have
>seen in this debate (although quotidian is hardly an abstruse word!).
>Or it could mean choosing to use technical words like 'habitus', but
>adding a gloss in simpler language We do this all the time, when
>lecturing to undergraduates, or when reviewing books for the newspapers
>rather than academic journals.
>We need to keep the practice of rigorous theorising and testing of
>theories.
>We need to expose the unarticulated theories behind the popular debates.
>(There's nothing more dangerous than an unarticulated theory masked as
>common sense.) In other words, we shouldn't go along with this slippage
>of equating academic rigour with difficult and exclusionary language.
>
>Vera Mackie
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>>From: "Mark Davis" <davismr at unimelb.edu.au>
>>Date: 28 July 2006 10:43:24 PM
>>To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz
>>
>>With all due respect to those concerned, I'm not convinced that Emma
>>Dawson is making any attempt to 'delegitimise' academic discussion. As
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>she
>>writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Lest I be sternly rebuked by fellow students and researchers, let me
>>>make
>>>
>>>
>>it clear that I fully >support rigorous scholarship and will
>>vigorously defend the right of academics to contribute to >the
>>intellectual development of the human race at the most theoretical
>>level. The apparently >abstract and often obscure work by researchers
>>in social sciences and cultural studies is >essential to the
>>development of ideas.
>>
>>Nor, as someone suggested, is she suggesting that: 'it is OK for
>>academics to engage in abstract theorising, but then says we can't do
>>it in relation to this topic.'
>>
>>Rather, she raises some salient points about the failure of 'theory'
>>in public debate, whilst deriding conservative anti-multiculturalism.
>>
>>There is, I think, a useful and necessary debate to be had about this
>>lack of impact. Bewilderingly, from where I sit, even after three
>>decades of 'theory' - and of neoliberalism - it is still primarily
>>old-fashioned liberals representing progressive positions in public
>>debate. While there are plenty of institutional reasons for that, I
>>don't think 'we' can blame others for ever. The penultimate para of
>>her piece stands both as a defense of our intellectual practice, and
>>as an indictment of our relative failure to work the public sphere
>>proper:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Australia can ill afford this kind of intellectual segregation: while
>>>
>>>
>>conservatives lament that our >universities are held captive by
>>left-wing thought, progressives should also be distressed by >their
>>inability to penetrate the public sphere and to counter the often
>>destructive and
>>ill->informed statements of commentators whose pronouncements could
>>easily be destroyed by a >well-researched and clearly written
>>
>>
>argument.
>
>
>>Disclosure: while I don't know Emma, I do know her work and am one of
>>the OzProspect board members who granted her fellowship.
>>
>>Best wishes for the conference
>>Mark
>>
>>NB: someone earlier made a throwaway point about Emma's belonging to a
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>tank whilst criticising them. OzProspect is non-partisan and survives,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>just, on a miniscule budget compared to multimillion dollar partisan
>>juggernauts like the CIS. Equivalence? We wish!
>>
>>M
>>
>>--
>>Mark Davis
>>Publishing and Communications Program
>>Department of English with Cultural Studies University of Melbourne
>>61-3-8344-3349
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________
>>
>>csaa-forum
>>discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>>
>>www.csaa.asn.au
>>
>>change your subscription details at
>>http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>>
>>
>>
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: not available
>Type: text/enriched
>Size: 4299 bytes
>Desc: not available
>Url :
>http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20060729/c24dbb
>07/attachment-0001.bin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:39:03 +1000
>From: "Amanda Wise" <Amanda.Wise at scmp.mq.edu.au>
>Subject: RE: [csaa-forum] RE: Another attack on CS in the Oz
>To: <csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au>
>Message-ID: <20060729013916.C22E3EBA1D at pellew.cdu.edu.au>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>Dear List,
>
>I'd like to add another dimension to this discussion.
>
>My initial distress at Emma Dawson's piece was her blatant
>misrepresentation
>and selective quoting from a CFP I sent out to various lists for the
>Everyday Multiculturalism conference. In addition to the things you've
>all
>mentioned, I simply felt she lacked journalistic integrity; at no time
>did
>she contact us, as conference conveners, to ask about the content of the
>conference or what kind of papers we were after.
>
>For those of you interested, I am copying the conference notice (word
>for
>word) below. You will notice only a small part-paragraph of complex
>language
>(sure that's ok, given that its an academic conference) and the rest is
>extremely accessible language; more accessible than most CFPs I've seen.
>As
>an academic conference, I also can't see what the problem is with
>mentioning
>Bourdieu in the CFP! If you compare it with how she presented it in her
>article, you will see she has seriously misrepresented the conference.
>
>Nor had she has ever seen a list of abstracts or presenters. The irony
>is
>that we deliberately convened this conference and chose the words in the
>CFP
>to attract papers that were grounded and not too over-theorised and
>texty!
>(it is an interesting aside that most of our presenters are from
>anthropology and not cultural studies..but that's another debate all
>together)
>
>If she had bothered to speak with us before attacking the conference and
>its
>terminology; she would have discovered that;
>
>- Our two keynotes are leading figures in cultural research doing
>research
>that engages beyond the academy who both regularly communicate their
>work
>through the media(Ien Ang and Greg Noble)
>
>- That about 20% of the audience will be non-academics
>
>- That we have two full panels of speakers from outside academia
>(government
>and community ppl)
>
>- Indeed we have received numerous emails from practitioners interested
>in
>the conference. I think some people underestimate their interest in
>academic
>discussions. We don't always have to 'dumb down'. They are looking for
>fresh
>new ideas and want to be stimulated to find new ways to do their front
>line
>work.
>
>- That we planned a media campaign to promote the conference and the
>papers
>within it.
>
>- We used the word 'quotidian' only once. What is the problem with that
>word? It captures something slightly different from the banal
>connotations
>of 'everyday'. We also provided a simple definition. Of course in lay
>contexts I always use the latter term. But this was an academic CFP for
>goodness sake!
>
>So in short; I simply felt that she (mis)used our CFP as an easy target
>to
>make a point, however legitimate (or otherwise) that point may be.
>Surely
>that is not good journalistic practice.
>
>Call for papers is below FYI
>Cheers
>Amanda
>
>
>
>HERE IS THE CALL FOR PAPERS
>-----------------------------------------------
>Everyday Multiculturalism Conference
>28 & 29th September 2006
>Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, Macquarie University
>
>Key note speakers:
>Professor Ien Ang, ARC Professorial Fellow, Centre for Cultural
>Research,
>University of Western Sydney
>Dr Greg Noble, School of Humanities and Languages, University of Western
>Sydney
>
>While research on Australian multiculturalism and racism is well
>developed
>in Australia, qualitative research into everyday modes of lived
>multiculturalism, remains fairly limited. This two day conference seeks
>to
>bring together researchers exploring everyday experiences of cultural
>diversity and difference.
>
>The conference will be divided into two parts:
>
>1) Everyday Multiculturalism - Open theme
>
>Day one will be an open themed day on Everyday Multiculturalism. Papers
>in
>this section will engage with the quotidian dimensions of living with
>diversity. Quotidian diversity has variously been described as
>'togetherness-in-difference' (Ang 2000), and 'inhabiting difference'
>(Hage
>1998). We take the term to mean those perspectives on cultural diversity
>which recognise the embodied or inhabited nature of living with cultural
>difference.
>
>We are particularly interested in papers that focus on the intersections
>and
>relationships between cultural groups, rather than research taking a
>single
>ethnic group as a focus. Papers may explore the interconnections between
>the
>everyday and larger discourses; everyday interconnections, affinities,
>and
>solidarities, and everyday disjunctures, discomforts, and racisms.
>
>Papers may explore modes of living with and across difference in
>suburbia or
>regional Australia such as through food, neighbouring, shopping or
>sport, or
>issues such as multicultural place-sharing, and battles over place
>identity
>and belonging. Papers which take an embodied approach, such as through
>frameworks such as affect or Bourdieu's habitus are also particularly
>welcome.
>
>2) Cronulla and the Everyday Politics of Cultural Difference in Suburbia
>
>
>Day two papers will present a collection of new work reflecting on the
>Cronulla riots - the causes, the riots themselves, and their
>ramifications.
>The Cronulla riots caught many commentators by surprise.
>Some commentators argued that the riots were a symptom of everyday
>tensions,
>others argued that Cronulla represents a failure of multiculturalism,
>while
>still others argued that it was a result of a decade of 'dog-whistle'
>politics in Australia. Racism, ethnocentrism and other forms of
>prejudice
>are often born out of everyday encounters with difference intertwined
>with
>national and global politics and discourses. The aim of this day will be
>to
>offer an opportunity to scholars to present works-in-progress around the
>Cronulla issue.
>
>
>We invite proposals from any discipline that engage with any aspect of
>'everyday multiculturalism' with a special focus on those employing
>grounded
>methodologies such as fieldwork, interviews, focus groups and
>ethnographic
>participant observation.
>
>
>Special Panels:
>
>. A panel featuring representatives of some of the more innovative
>government and community interventions developed since the riots.
>
>. A panel of representatives from SBS presenting on a new project for
>SBS4
>'Daily Australian Multicultural Life'.
>
>
>Non-presenting audience members from within and outside academia are
>encouraged to attend.
>
>
>Website: http://www.crsi.mq.edu.au/Everydaymulticulturalism.htm
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________
>
>csaa-forum
>discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>
>www.csaa.asn.au
>
>change your subscription details at
>http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>
>End of csaa-forum Digest, Vol 27, Issue 25
>******************************************
>_______________________________________
>
>csaa-forum
>discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>
>www.csaa.asn.au
>
>change your subscription details at http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://bronzewing.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20060801/29947441/attachment.html
More information about the csaa-forum
mailing list