The Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP) is a peer-reviewed, biannual, scholarly journal of contemplative cutting edge research and practice on subjects related to human social flourishing and peace.

Editor: Dr Jeremy A Rinker

Associate Editor: Nilanjan Dutta

Publisher: Abhijit Mazumder

ADVISORY BOARD

Dr Amii Omara-Otunnu • Dr Ashwani Kumar • Dr Bandana Purkayastha

Dr Jacint Jordana • Dr John Doyle • Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi • Ms Michelle Ndiaye

Dr Rahul Mukherji • Dr Shankari Sundararaman • Dr Vandana Shiva

JTPP (https://jtpp.uk), bringing together peace practitioners and academics, fills an important transdisciplinary gap that exists in current academic literature.

JTPP endeavours to support scholarship that highlights

- the human potential for transformation,

- a holistic and collaborative approach to complex systems,

- the transdisciplinary nature of solutions to wicked social problems, and

- a shared sense of purpose in human transnational activism for positive change.

JTPP thus provides a dynamic forum for sharing information and experiences primarily catering to academics, and activists particularly in the disciplines of Peace and Conflict Studies, Political Science, International Relations, Human Rights, History, as well as professionals, policymakers, organisations, institutions and individuals who nurture a firm belief in peace and human rights.

JTPP invites SUBMISSIONS from academics, scholar-practitioners, and social activists. Please see: Author’s Corner (https://jtpp.uk/authors-corner/) for Submission Guidelines.

JTPP follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

For SUBSCRIPTION, please see: https://jtpp.uk/subscription-plan/

Published by Frontpage Publications Limited (https://frontpagepublications.com), Level 2, 13 John Prince’s Street, London W1G 0JR, in both print and online versions, in January 2020.

In association with Peace and Justice Studies Association (https://www.peacejusticestudies.org).

ASSOCIATES at: Delhi, Honolulu, Istanbul, Kampala, Kolkata, London, Madrid, Norwalk

Vol. 3

August 2021

No. 2

Contents

Our Contributors

Editor’s Welcome and Introduction

JEREMY A RINKER

Young Peacebuilders

Challenge Traditional Knowledge Creation

KATRINA LECLERC & SHADI ROUHSHAHBAZ

Bridging Academia in the Global

North and South: Challenges and Opportunities

MARIA KARDASHEVSKAYA & AGUS HERU SETIAWAN

The Making of a Black Public Intellectual:

A Progressive in the Academy

KIMBERLY MAYFIELD LYNCH

Pan-African/Black Public Intellectuals as Beacons of Hope:

Possibilities of Counterhegemonic Narratives in Higher Education

ALEX OTIENO

Public Intellectuals in Private Universities:

An Edenic Parable from India

NANDINI DHAR

In Dialogue with a Young Public Intellectual

JTPP Editor’s Interview with Anti-caste Activist Dr Suraj Yengde

Kaleidoscope

NILANJAN DUTTA

Book Reviews

MARC CARON & MICHELLE COLLINS-SIBLEY

In Memoriam

DR TERRY D BEITZEL (1967-2021)

All articles published in this journal are copyright protected.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study or review,

no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means

(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise)

without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any

person who does any contravention in relation to this

publication, under the Copyright, Designs and

Patents Act 1988, may be liable to criminal

prosecution and civil claims for damages.

Our Contributors

CARON, MARC is a Master’s student in Peace and Conflict Studies (PCS) at University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA (UNCG). His research focuses on building cultures of peace that value alternatives to violence through peace education initiatives. Marc serves as Vice President of CONFLICT Alliance, a student group within the PCS Department, a steering committee member of Student Voices for Refugees which advocates for increasing refugee access to higher education, and a member of the executive board of the Global Journal of Peace Research and Praxis (UNCG).

(email: m_caron@uncg.edu)

COLLINS-SIBLEY, MICHELLE, PhD, is Professor of English and Director, Africana Studies, University of Mount Union, USA; her recent publications include ‘If These are Our Values then What is Our Practice: #Black Lives Matter and an American Apocalypse’, Groarke & Welty (eds.), ‘Peace and Justice Studies: Critical Pedagogy’, (Routledge, 2019); ‘You Can’t Really Change the Heart without Telling a Story: Poetry as Peacebuilding’, Johnson (ed.), ‘Humanities Perspectives in Peace Education: Re-Engaging the Heart of Peace Studies’ (IAP, forthcoming). Michelle serves on the board of PJSA and the Ashland Center for Nonviolence steering committee.

(email: sibleymg@mountunion.edu)

DHAR, NANDINI, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Literature and Gender Studies at the OP Jindal Global University (JGU), Haryana, India. With degrees from University of Calcutta (Presidency College, Kolkata), Jadavpur University, Kolkata, the University of Oregon, USA and the University of Texas at Austin, USA, Nandini now teaches postcolonial historical novel, food literature, the culture of domesticity in postcolonial and US ethnic novels, and theories of the everyday. Nandini is the co-editor of the forthcoming anthology ‘Gender Formations in Contemporary India’ (Bloomsbury).

(email: nandinidhar2112@gmail.com)

DUTTA, NILANJAN, Associate Editor, ‘Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis’, is better known as an activist being involved in various social movements, particularly the civil liberties, environmental, anti-nuclear and peace movements. Having researched on various allied topics with fellowships from the SOAS, University of London, SARAI-CSDS and Calcutta Research Group, Nilanjan has authored, co-authored and edited a number of books on related subjects and made a few documentary films as well. His forthcoming publication is ‘Civil Liberties Movement in India’.

(email: nilanjan123123@rediffmail.com)

HERU SETIAWAN, AGUS holds an MA in Anthropology and is an Assistant Professor at the Indonesian Art Institute at Surakarta (ISI Surakarta). He is interested in visual arts, postcolonial studies, and disability rights. Agus is also a visual artist whose works have been exhibited at major art festivals and galleries across Indonesia. Most of his academic work focuses on the anthropological study of photographic practices. At ISI Surakarta, he teaches both theory (such as ethno-photography, anthropology and art) and practice-based classes.

(email: agusheru@isi-ska.ac.id)

KARDASHEVSKAYA, MARIA holds a PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies. She is currently a Research Associate at the University of Manitoba, Canada with RESOLVE (Research and Education for Solutions to Violence and Abuse). She is interested in gendered nonviolence and resistance, violence prevention, decolonisation, environmental justice and peace ecology, and the dynamics of the international-local cooperation in peacebuilding work. These interests emerge from long-term work in protection and peacebuilding in South-East Asia, including Indonesia. Maria volunteers with Peace Brigades International (Indonesia Project) as a Committee Member.

(email: kardashm@myumanitoba.ca)

LECLERC, KATRINA is a PhD student in conflict studies at Saint-Paul University, Canada. She holds a Master’s in peace and conflict from the University of Manitoba and a Bachelor’s in human rights and conflict resolution from the University of Winnipeg, Canada. Katrina is a Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) policy specialist with the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for YPS. She also sits on the board of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW).

(email: klecl076@uottawa.ca)

MAYFIELD LYNCH, KIMBERLY, EdD, is the Dean of the School of Education at Holy Names University, USA. Kimberly has been teaching for over 30 years and began her teaching career as a special education teacher for students with mild/moderate disabilities in the Oakland Unified School District and later became a professor. Her research interests and activism include the disproportionate representation of African-American Males receiving special education services, increasing teacher diversity and incentivising daily attendance.

(email: mayfield@hnu.edu)

OTIENO, ALEX, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice at Arcadia University, USA. His teaching and research interests are in health and human rights, housing and homelessness, religion and peacebuilding, Pan-Africanism and Global Africa, the role of the United Nations in global governance, and sociology of higher education. Alex is currently working on a project focusing on using Black public intellectuals to facilitate emancipatory and liberation pedagogy in higher education alongside explorations of reflexivity and social imaginaries in auto/biography and auto/ethnography.

(email: otienoa@arcadia.edu)

RINKER, JEREMY A, PhD, the Editor of the ‘Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis’, is Associate Professor & Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Peace & Conflict Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA where his research interests revolve around the centrality of justice discourse, trauma awareness, and collective resilience in movements aimed at transforming social conflict, historical injustices, and structural violence. His publications include ‘Identity, Rights, and Awareness: Anticaste Activism in India and the Awakening of Justice through Discursive Practices’ (Lexington, USA, 2018), ‘Realizing Nonviolent Resilience: Neoliberalism, Societal Trauma, and Marginalized Voice’ (with Jerry T Lawler, Peter Lang, 2020).

(email: jr@jtpp.uk / jarinker@uncg.edu)

ROUHSHAHBAZ, SHADI is a researcher and consultant specialising in the Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agenda. She holds a Bachelor’s and Master’s in English Literature from Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran and a double joint Master’s in International Development from Paul Valery University, France and Ca’ Foscari University, Italy. Shadi founded Peace Mentors, a youth-led and women-led initiative in Iran. She is the MENA regional coordinator at the United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY), a member of the YPS Research Network and a Programme Analyst at UN Women.

(email: shrshahbaz@gmail.com)

Disclaimer

While the information contained in this journal is believed to be true and accurate at the time of publication, neither the authors, editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors and/or omissions that may have been inadvertently made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the materials contained in this journal.

Editor’s Welcome and Introduction

Welcome to the sixth issue (Vol. 3, No. 2) of the Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP). This issue marks the completion of our third year of publication. Like all milestones, this is to be acknowledged and celebrated. I can think of no better way to mark this milestone in our short, but impactful, history than with the release of this astute sixth issue of the journal. In it, readers will find an important, yet often overlooked, discussion about the vital notion and place of the public intellectual in contemporary human society. Both a concept in need of definition and an ideal in need of support, the role of the public intellectual, we felt, deserved critical analytic scrutiny and interrogation.

In this age of information overload, higher education is faced with a new and unique set of challenges; the lines between scholarship, knowledge creation, and social change are increasingly becoming blurred. Immediate access to information (regardless of its objective truth) demands that individuals who speak intelligently and cogently to the public on issues of the political and/or ideological moment (Posner, 2003) must be scrutinised, judiciously foregrounded, and systematically engaged. As I asked in the Call for Papers for this sixth issue: What is the role of traditional academics and academic institutions of higher education in our modern democratic society? While broad, this question is both under-appreciated and of significant global importance. Academic institutions have long been spaces of privilege and power, but increasingly the work of knowledge creation is understood as critical to our survival as a species on this planet. Public intellectuals, in one important sense, act as translators of academic knowledge to the wider public; they distil critical methodologies and epistemologies for the laity. Now more than ever before in human history, there is a need for intelligent culling and analysis of mass information and big data; unconsciously we seek new priests and profits. While the title of public intellectual is now the aspiration of many emergent academics, there is little clarity on what rights and responsibilities this title confers. Incidentally, one could also argue that public intellectuals are not confined to only academic spaces––for example investigative journalists and popular authors also increasingly assume the title of public intellectual. But, upon what criterion is this title based? This tangled mess of questions, though complicated, is more than simply an expression of the ‘blooming buzzing confusion that characterizes much contemporary thinking about social justice’ (Rubenstein & Blechman, 1999); it is a critical window through which to explore human freedom, democratic polity, and the value for inclusive social change in our societies. Who we collectively label as a public intellectual reveals who we are and what we, as a society, value.

While there are, of course, many roles for traditional scholarship in the modern knowledge economy, delineating space for what Horkheimer (1947) calls objective reasoning is critical in our postmodern internet-viscous reality. Therefore, this issue of the JTPP aims to embrace the complex issues associated with the identity and place of the public intellectual in contemporary society. Admittedly, we at the JTPP aspire to promote the positive aspects of this identity; progressive influencers, soothsayers, and cultural critics are needed now more than even in our mistrusted public realm. Still, in supporting the positive values of critical thinking endemic to the public intellectual we also have many questions about how traditional scholarship and disciplinary training both sustain and subvert attempts to create the lasting social change and human flourishing peace-loving people desire. The recent tenure tiffs of African-American scholars and outspoken activists (here I am thinking of recent public disputes between Harvard University and Dr Cornel West and the University of North Carolina and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones) only act to awaken critical questions about the power and place of the University in society. Providing the forum for critical questions is what animates the ethos of the JTPP and, thus, this issue’s focus is both a fitting celebration of our third-year publishing milestone and urge for lasting social change.

Rather than making the case for the public intellectual here (something the pieces herein do quite well on their own), I want to introduce you to the many questions and issues that the identity of the public intellectual raises for both academia and the wider public sphere. Many of these questions appear either explicitly or implicitly in the manuscripts, interviews, and books reviews that appear in these pages, but in briefly outlining the thorny enigmas associated with the public intellectual at the outset, I hope to encourage further scholarship on this assumed and socially constructed identity. While we all think we know what it means to be a public intellectual, and can cite popular examples, scant attention in scholarship has closely interrogated the label’s full impact and meaning. A cursory search of the literature turns up limited results, including the aforementioned book by Posner (2003), as well as more recent treatments by Cummings (2005), Sassower (2014), and Desch (2016). Most of these book-length approaches seem to focus on questions of why the modern public intellectual is in decline. I am not convinced this is a pressing issue in 2021, an area that seems to abound with talking heads and pundits of all sorts. Rather than focusing on the possible decline of public intellectuals, we have chosen instead to take a more positive view of the state of play, despite many impediments neoliberal elites put in the way of public intellectuals. Those in positions of power rarely grasp the true extent of what is wrong with the world, and their control of social media is more limited than traditional press. Public intellectuals call out these wrongs and inspire us to think in new, critical, and informed ways about these wrongs. In shedding light on power, privilege, and control, public intellectuals call to task unspoken assumptions, assumed knowledge, and subjective reasoning. Such critical views, by definition, are rare from the middle- and upper-class intelligentsia of academia and the fifth estate, but when they do appear we are forced to take note. Rather than being in decline I would argue opportunities for public intellectualism have never been greater. Still, while the ease of access to information and the shrinking of time and space due to globalisation makes the tools of the public intellectual more accessible, it also seems to blur the definitional boundaries of what it means to be a public intellectual and opens the door to many spurious and subjective claims.

Much of what good critical scholarship does is to challenge our common sense conceptions of the world with objective empiricism. Even though at the core of exploring the role of the public intellectual is a realisation that much is wrong with the world, an objective and critical lens does not have to lead to nihilism. Even if those with power and privilege have little incentive to challenge the status quo, public intellectuals point to the need to radically re-assess. When basic human needs (Burton, 1990) are met for the majority, it is easy for a certain complacency to take hold. Critical thinking, in short supply in our modern media landscape, is also easily delegitimised by populist humour and irony. Still, there remains an important space for critical scholarship in our society and we must not miss this point. When the powerful do challenge our basic conceptual complacency, we must embrace their allyship. Public intellectuals often step outside their class privilege and take the road less travelled. Institutions are needed to support the courage of public intellectuals. Despite contemporary pessimism about institutions of higher education, I believe that academic institutions still provide the space and structure to develop the solutions and critical insights needed to address the world’s wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). But populism, nationalism, and anti-intellectualism threaten to devalue knowledge, delegitimise objective truth, and disregard the important public value of our academic institutions. The people that make up these institutions’ most valuable asset––their faculty––are increasingly cowed and silenced. Public intellectuals stand on the front lines of these battles and play a critical, and often underappreciated, role in any society aspiring towards the democratic ideals of freedom of expression and conscience.

Although not all public intellectuals find their start or build their voice in institutions of higher education, many of the questions about the public intellectual identity revolve around the place of the modern University in an increasingly anti-intellectual society. Neoliberal forces have long sought to delegitimise the public university as a space of public policy innovation and social change. Reducing the academic endeavour to a profit seeking enterprise limits the opportunities to grown young public intellectuals. The forces that desire to privatise and control intellectual innovation have few remaining roadblocks in their way. The public intellectual represents one such critical roadblock and means of information sharing to open new possibilities. Public intellectuals challenge the dominant ideology and pose important, critical, and value-based questions towards society not by professing the answers, but by asking critical questions. The modern Socratic gadfly is the public intellectual. They challenge the entire enterprise of the academy to rethink why it exists and how it engages in knowledge production. They ask: to what ends is knowledge production necessary, if society denies objective truth based on empirical evidence? In some sense, public intellectuals are the last bastion of resistance to the undemocratic tendencies of the power elite. Whether you call it community-engaged scholarship (Post, Ward, Longo & Saltmarsh, 2016) or public scholarship (Leavy, 2019), the naming and framing of the vast literature on the academy’s role in public debate and reason, remains important to the future of critical thinking and creative human expression. Public intellectuals help position the University equitably in the public sphere––a public sphere that is increasingly sceptical of the academy’s worth. For all these reasons we at the JTPP are not taking an objective and positive stance on public intellectuals––they are a normative public good in society that we feel must be uplifted and supported. Such support does not shy away from critical pedagogy, but rather is reinforced by it.

Public intellectuals never envisioned research as an endeavour that was done ‘on’ or ‘for’ community, but rather ‘with’ community. Such progressive educational development has its roots in the works of great thinkers like John Dewey and William James, among many others. This reciprocal and restorative approach to knowledge creation is what sets community engaged research, and indeed truly public intellectuals, apart from traditional positivist bench science. Community engaged public intellectualism has an emancipatory, inclusive, and decolonising view of knowledge that acts as a creative spark for both freedom and innovative social change. Some have called this fusion of community needs with academic knowledge production the work of ‘pracademics’ (Cleveland & Wineburg, 2011). Regardless of the many labels we attach to it, the tenants of such an approach have long been resident in the academic endeavour but need our collective support as both academics and public interest activists. The praxis of change requires public intellectuals. Increasingly, community engaged public scholarship has gained ascendancy in academia. Due to the attack on reason in the public sphere such town-gown collaboration represents an important shift for academia and is one that requires our collective attention as public intellectuals implicitly embrace these approaches to modern scholarship. In short, more than mere intellectualising, the idea of the public intellectual is of critical concern to developing peaceful and creative futures. Academia, like a free and fully funded press, would open such space. This issue you hold in your hands points towards the importance of these public goods, and implies that they require our sustained support as they are constantly under attack.

For the above reasoning, and from the editor’s vantage point, the excellent pieces in this sixth issue of the JTPP could not be either timelier for, or more important to, the project of human flourishing. In 2021, we are in a period of historical reckoning and international inflection. Movements for racial, environmental, and economic justice are gaining steam. This sixth issue, in boldly challenging the reader to understand the important role which public intellectuals play in both developing and sustaining the freedoms, continues to build on the foundational ethos of the JTPP. These pieces exemplify the type of critical questioning we envisioned when we began this venture.

We continue to believe that peace is forged in the collaborative relationship of sustained social action and this issue supports this belief via unpacking and upholding the importance of the public intellectual. The first article in this sixth edition, entitled ‘Young Peacebuilders Challenge Traditional Knowledge Creation’, (pp.16-40) encounters the reader to question the established categories of ‘academic epistemic knowledge’ (p.10) by looking at young peacebuilders as sources of new knowledge and pragmatic attempts at peacebuilding. The authors, Katrina Leclerc and Shadi Rouhshahbaz, challenge us to question traditional conceptions of expertise as they explore unique examples of youth as peacebuilders in far flung places such as: Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada, and Tunisia. Despite an argument that is clearly centred on traditional academics finding themselves in university-based institutional settings, this opening piece identifies the barriers to inclusive knowledge creation by privileging the scholarship of engagement over the scholarship of discovery. More than arcane academic categories these complementary, yet distinct, types of scholarship deserve closer attention as metrics of academic success.

Leclerc and Rouhshahbaz’s important treatment of academic impact nicely leads into the second article by Maria Kardashevskaya and Agus Heru Setiawan entitled ‘Bridging Academia in the Global North and South: Challenges and Opportunities’ (pp.41-61). In this piece the authors name and frame the inequities often overlooked between scholarship emanating from the Global South as opposed to that disseminated from the Global North. In arguing that ‘the agenda of decolonisation should aim to promote equal relationships between the academics from the Global South and the Global North’ (p.48), the authors of this article dissect the neoliberalisation of higher education, especially as it relates to the system of Scopus and Web of Science––two peer reviewed English language abstract and citation databases of registered academic research output. They argue that such neoliberal firewalls, in the context of Indonesia’s facing ‘enormous pressure’ (p.48) to open their higher education markets to foreign higher education institutions, do little to assist academics in the Global South and even less to assist in the international production of knowledge sharing. Such critical insights must be better understood in the Global North’s public and academic spheres, and the authors argue that such understanding is critical to processes of de/colonisation.

The third article in this issue takes a more locally based and autoethnographic tact in centring the author, Dr Kimberly Mayfield Lynch, as a progressive black public intellectual in a US-based academy. ‘The Making of a Black Public Intellectual: A Progressive in the Academy’ (pp.62-82) simultaneously provides a retrospective and prospective look at what it means to be a successful black female in the white and male dominated space of the American University. Mayfield Lynch’s personal account of what it takes to develop as a public intellectual in Oakland, California provides an important account of how to leverage the progressive space of academia to forge relationships that address racist systems and produce measurable change in public education outcomes. Embracing the variation in academic methods and styles, the JTPP’s sixth issue models a key skill of the public intellectual––deft autoethnography in describing pedagogical and research decisions.

Dr Alex Otieno’s piece entitled: ‘Pan-African/Black Public Intellectuals as Beacons of Hope: Possibilities of Counterhegemonic Narratives in Higher Education’ (pp.83-108) takes this autoethnographic focus on pedagogy to another level. Otieno’s argument for narrating and memorialising the important history of black intellectuals maintains that their existence creates possibilities to change the dominant narrative of race around the world. Otieno’s critical reflective pedagogical practice, coupled with his historically based narrative analysis, gives readers an exceptionally textured understanding of the importance and impact of black public intellectuals in our current moment of racial reckoning. Of course, race is not the only critical issue that public intellectuals address and the remaining pieces in this issue stray away from the North American context of race to address class, caste, and various means of resistance to the neoliberal ideology that is so closely tied to all systems of oppression.

Dr Nandini Dhar’s article entitled ‘Public Intellectuals in Private Universities: An Edenic Parable from India’ (pp.109-31) provides an insightful critique of neoliberal attempts to export liberal arts education outside of the Unites States. Taking as its starting point the recent resignation of Dr Pratap Bhanu Mehta from Ashoka University, India’s premiere private liberal arts institution, Dhar develops a blistering critique of the ‘new’ private universities that have proliferated in India in the post-liberalisation period since 1991. Dhar argues that the ‘bought-utopia’ (p.114, 129) that Mehta’s resignation from Ashoka also makes clear that caste, class, and capitalist hegemony over labour remain obfuscated by the rise of such institutions. This important piece challenges the unquestioned assumptions of philanthrocapitalism in education and foregrounds the similar themes in other pieces in this issue that hint at the limits of academic freedom for overcoming the everyday struggles of average citizens.

In returning to a more autoethnographic posture, the editor shares an interview with a young Dalit activist and scholar––Dr Suraj Yengde (pp.132-37). Yende a new breed of public intellectual, articulates in this interview a broad vision for the role of higher education and expresses his thoughts on the ‘growing discomfort with the traditional forms of knowledge’ (p.136). The insights from an emerging Dalit (former untouchable) public intellectual provides further clarity on the important role that systems of oppression play in academic freedom and knowledge production. This brief interview, the first of its type in our pages, rounds out the original manuscripts for this issue, but it does not end the issue’s critical content.

As usual we present a ‘Kaleidoscope’ (pp.138-41) section that engages with recent news as it impacts the overall theme of the issue. Also included are two recent book reviews (pp.142-48) related to the idea of resistance. Marc Caron’s review of Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance: A Transdisciplinary Approach by Anna Johansson and Stellan Vinthagen (2020) provides an important backdrop to the themes appearing in the pieces in this issue. Providing academic definition to everyday resistance, the authors of this recently released book provide a transdisciplinary approach to considering how resistance can be integrated into our everyday lives. Caron offers a nice overview and general endorsement of the work by arguing that the theory laden book effectively argues that ‘everyday resistance and power are engaged in a dynamic interplay’ (p.144). Although not explicitly noted, if readers of this issue save this book review until after consuming the manuscripts detailed above, the connections between everyday resistance and public intellectuals will become clearer.

The second book review by Dr Michelle Collins-Sibley is of the edited volume Realizing Nonviolent Resistance: Neoliberalism, Societal Trauma and Marginalized Voice by Jeremy A Rinker and Jerry T Lawler. In developing further connections between neoliberal ideology and the processes of intellectual resistance, Collins-Sibley’s review provides a sort of further reading of many of the themes addressed in the issue’s earlier pages. Focusing on the intersections between collective historical trauma, marginalisation, and neoliberalism, Collins-Sibley’s reading of this edited volume praises the clear presentation of neoliberalism, a complicated and often misunderstood ideology. At the same time, it also compliments the ‘clear and concise overview of collective trauma, specifically collective historical trauma, in the context of the ‘human wreckage’ left in the wake of neoliberal development’ (p.146). This reviews’ emphasis on what it means to be a trauma informed peacebuilder resonates with questions herein that interrogate the meaning of the public intellectual.

In the final entry of this issue, the editor decided to pay homage to a friend and colleague who passed away from COVID-19. Noting that this, unfortunately, may become a more regular section in the JTPP––we all age and one thing we all share is that we will at some point expire––the intent is to celebrate a life well lived and cut too short. The ‘In Memoriam’ (p.149-51) section is dedicated to Dr Terry D Beitzel, past classmate, nonviolent scholar, and genuine good human. Rest in peace, my friend and know that you are missed.

Thank you for taking the time to read us––we know there is so much to distract readers, so we sincerely appreciate your focus and dedication. Again, I encourage you to share this new and creative means of knowledge production with friends, colleagues, and fellow activists. I believe that the articles in this sixth issue of the Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP) provide the hope and collective resilience we need in these trying times. The content herein will inform the dissent necessary to achieve lasting change in today’s violent reality. In the immortal words of Dr Cornell West: ‘Stay strong and steadfast’ (Personal correspondence, 17 May 2021).

We welcome your feedback and continued support for our shared work.

With metta (loving kindness and compassion),

Jeremy A Rinker, PhD

Department of Peace and Conflict Studies

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Editor, Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP)

E: jr@jtpp.uk / jarinker@uncg.edu

REFERENCES

Burton, J W, Conflict: Human Needs Theory, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1990

Cleveland, O & Wineburg, R, Pracademics and Community Change: A True Story of Nonprofit Development and Social Entrepreneurship during Welfare Reform, Chicago: Lyceum Books Inc, 2011

Cummings, D, The Changing Role of the Public Intellectual, Routledge, 2005

Desch, M, Public Intellectuals in the Global Arena: Professors or Pundits?, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016

Horkheimer, Max. The Eclipse of Reason, New York: Oxford University Press, (1947) 2013

Leavy, P (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Methods for Public Scholarship, New York: Oxford University Press, 2019

Posner, R, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, Boston: Harvard University Press, 2003

Post, M, Ward, E, Longo, N & Saltmarsh, J (eds.), Publicly Engaged Scholars: Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2016

Rittel, Horst W J & Melvin M Webber, ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2 (June 1973), pp.155-69

Rubenstein, R & Blechman, F, ‘Introduction: Conflict resolution and Social Justice’, Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1999, p.2

Sassower, R, The Price of Public Intellectuals, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014

Young Peacebuilders

Challenge Traditional Knowledge Creation

Katrina Leclerc & Shadi Rouhshahbaz

ABSTRACT

The relationship between local engagement (young people’s activism) and academic research (traditional knowledge collection) has been defined by theorists as the Scholarship of Application. This type of scholarship establishes academic epistemic knowledge, validated and generated by thought institutions which are then applied to external or other academic contexts. On the other hand, the Scholarship of Engagement approach invites collaborative and problem-oriented knowledge production to provide enriched quality of life in its outcome.

In challenging the definition and roles of knowledge creation, dissemination, and management in the contemporary public sphere, we argue the validity of diverse perspectives and experiences as valued expertise. By doing so, we demonstrate the validity of youth perspectives and their generational ‘expertise’ in our modern contexts and for the purpose of addressing modern challenges––for example, in the pursuit of sustainable and inclusive peace processes, operationalisation of international policy frameworks, and follow-through on agreed outcomes of policy. By providing an alternative approach to valid and scientific knowledge expertise, we demonstrate that current sociopolitical discourses and experiences lived by young people, in fact, make them valuable experts in a number of fields.

Through this research, we evaluate epistemic barriers that decrease the validity of knowledge created by young people arguing that the Scholarship of Engagement provides alternative perspectives leading to more robust, relevant, and inclusive knowledge production.

KEYWORDS

Peace and security, peacebuilding, young people, knowledge creation, Scholarship of Engagement

INTRODUCTION

Traditional knowledge creation has been long dominated by the liberal Western elite, seemingly widely inaccessible to a large portion of the world’s population. With the recent shifts, both within academia and research spaces, and the growing interest the international community has placed on the experiences of young people, it is an opportune moment to turn our attention to the influence youth have on knowledge production and dissemination. There are 1.85 billion young people in the world, with thousands of youth-led movements, networks and organisations, mostly operating with little resources and negligible budgets (Berents & Prelis, 2020). While academia increasingly begins to create space for civil society, encouraging theoretical and methodological turns towards inclusive and participatory research, it is also time for the work of young peacebuilders to be recognised. Young people in peace praxis are currently viewed by most as beneficiaries or subjects for research, rather than owners of research and knowledge. Youth are continually being told to wait for their turn, prove their worth and make their mark in order to deserve spaces of influence. We argue that the Scholarship of Engagement offers an alternative, more inclusive approach to knowledge creation and that through the application of the United Nations’ Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agenda, young people can be recognised as experts for local peacebuilding.

Young people in peace praxis are currently viewed by most as beneficiaries or subjects for research, rather than owners of research and knowledge. Youth are continually being told to wait for their turn, prove their worth and make their mark in order to deserve spaces of influence. We argue that the Scholarship of Engagement offers an alternative, more inclusive approach to knowledge creation.

This article examines the history of the Scholarships of Discovery, Application and Engagement to determine the ongoing shifts within traditional methods of data collection. It also challenges the concept of expertise, and offers alternative examples of young peacebuilding practitioners currently contributing both to peace in their communities and to the collection of knowledge at a country level in Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Canada, and Tunisia. By doing so, it argues that young people should be recognised as experts of their realities, and that this expertise should be viewed as valid within policy and research spaces.

SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT VERSUS SCHOLARSHIP OF APPLICATION

In challenging the definition and roles of knowledge creation, dissemination, and management in the contemporary public sphere, introducing Boyer’s (1990) domains of scholarship become essential in order for a thorough and transitional analysis and recognition of the role of young people’s lived experiences and expertise in knowledge creation. Boyer (1990) initially classified scholarship into four domains: discovery, teaching, integration, and application (Boyer et al, 2016).

The Scholarship of Discovery is known as the process through which original research challenges, discovers or expands upon the existing knowledge in a discipline or a field (Boyer, 1990). This scholarship is associated with the following characteristics. First, setting research as the central professional endeavour and focus, pursuing knowledge for its own sake, in the pursuit of cognitive truth and through discipline-based organisation—as opposed to interdisciplinary organisation (O’Meara & Rice, 2005: 19). Second, establishing scholar reputations within national and international associations and through persistence in the accentuation of specialisation (O’Meara & Rice, 2005: 19). And third, assessing the quality of research through peer-review and professional autonomy (O’Meara & Rice, 2005: 19). The Scholarship of Discovery aims to contribute not only to knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of academic institutions. It seeks to answer questions such as ‘what should be known?’ and ‘what has yet to be found?’ (Boyer, 1990).

The evaluation of this type of scholarship is often used as a concrete tool for assessing merit, giving promotions and navigating the tenure reward system in academia; however, this scholarship also marginalises other types of scholarship that exclude those whose expertise in other scholarships do not necessarily conform with the current system of tenure and promotion, for example, applied scholarship, teaching and integration (Hofmeyer, Newton & Scott, 2007).

Bok (1990) considers one of the gaps within the scope of the Scholarship of Discovery in the North American context to be the fact that universities continue responding weakly to major societal problems, especially when outside support is not available. Moreover, he states that academia has not been successful in discovering emerging issues and highlighting them to public spheres and thus hampering efforts to address critical challenges at the national and international levels.

The shortcomings of the Scholarship of Discovery are to an extent filled with the introduction of the Scholarship of Integration, defined by Boyer (1990) as ‘making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating non-specialists, too’ (p.18). This kind of scholarship is considered to be ‘serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on original research’ (p.18) through the scholar fitting their interpretation and research or the research of others ‘into larger intellectual patterns’ (p.18). The

Bridging Academia in the Global

North and South: Challenges and Opportunities

Maria Kardashevskaya & Agus Heru Setiawan^1

ABSTRACT

We are researchers who find ourselves to be in two related but separate worlds: Global North and Global South. We are writing from the perspective of the Global South academics who find themselves in a situation where they are required to contribute to Scopus and Web of Science-indexed academic journals. We are specifically writing about the situation in Indonesia but tackle the issues of decolonisation of knowledge creation and sharing processes. We argue that the agenda of decolonisation needs to be inclusive of discussions against neoliberalism within higher education. We also argue that to decolonise knowledge creation and exchange processes, the academic knowledge creation should aim to transform itself into a community of knowledge creators that are connected transnationally in loose and closely-knit global networks that allow for flexibility, acceptance, and a transdisciplinary and transnational dialogue between the Global North and the Global South. This process then can potentially support the development of a national-level monolingual community of knowledge creators and sharers. And, in this way, transform the way national agencies assess their academics. For example, instead of putting funds into Scopus-indexed journals, they can put these funds into the creation of these small and numerous but well-connected knowledge creation communities that do not necessarily need to be bound to the English-speaking world.

KEYWORDS

Higher education, neoliberalism, decolonisation, knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, global north and global south

INTRODUCTION

We are researchers who find ourselves to be in two related but separate worlds: Global North and Global South.2 In this paper, we consider the policies that encourage publishing in Scopus-registered journals in English. By publishing in English, academics in Indonesia get extra credits for their promotion, higher reputation, and some financial benefits. For example, a publication at an accredited Indonesian academic journal gives 25 points towards promotion (Penilaian Angka Kredit [PAK]) as opposed to an article in English at a Scopus-registered journal which gives the academic 30 points (Ristekdikti, 2019). We see this system as unsustainable because this creates a situation where researchers in the countries of the Global South such as Indonesia prioritise publishing in English in journals that are registered in the global databases, such as Scopus or Web of Science. On a larger scale, this contributes to the maintenance of the Global North as the lead knowledge creator. We aim to explore the root causes of these requirements and argue that this is an effect of the neoliberal attacks on higher education (HE) that promotes the practice of university rankings globally. Universities in the Global South find themselves competing with the universities in the Global North. This is also an effect of the incomplete agenda for decolonisation that was hampered in most former colonies by neoliberalism (or, neo-colonialism).

The agenda of decolonisation should aim to promote equal relationships between the academics from the Global South and the Global North, academics from the Global North may need to reach out to universities in the Global South, publish in local languages, especially where they conduct their research, instead of encouraging researchers from the Global South to publish in English.

The Global North has seen a proliferation of conversations about the decolonisation of HE, knowledge creation and dissemination. However, discussions of neoliberalism and its effect on HE are minimal in this movement. Many of the recent articles and conversations that take place on decolonisation do not seem to touch upon the issue of neoliberalisation of the HE (for example, see Liyanage’s excellent debate paper on decolonising the higher education in the UK). The voices from the Global South seem to be leaning the discussion of decoloniality within HE into this direction. Following them, we argue that decolonisation discussions cannot be had outside the context of neoliberalisation of HE and the agenda of decolonisation should aim to promote equal relationships between the academics from the Global South and the Global North, and this may mean that academics from the Global North may need to reach out to universities in the Global South, publish in local languages, especially where they conduct their research, instead of encouraging researchers from the Global South to publish in English. There is a need for governments in the Global South to change their publication requirements in the spirit of decolonisation. and this may mean that.

NEOLIBERALISM AS THE EXTENSION OF COLONIALISM IN KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION

The number of universities has grown exponentially in the last few decades. For example, the UK had 46 universities in 1990 and by 2010 there were more than 140 universities. During the same timeframe, 1,200 universities have been established in China (Collini, 2017).3 The importance of universities and higher education has been growing in the last decades, especially in the context of neoliberalism and the move towards the so-called ‘knowledge economy’ (Olssen & Peters, 2005).

The modern system of education has its ‘roots in western cultures and civilizations’ (Tikly, 2004: 188). Modern education played an important role in colonisation by bringing missionaries into the colonies who then managed the schooling and propagated the ideas of subjugation; by ‘inculcat[ing the] indigenous elites into a western way of thinking (“colonization of the mind”); by promoting and spreading “the western episteme based on Eurocentric conceptions of human nature and of social reality” ’ (Tikly, 2004: 188). This resulted in a world that assumes it as a given that there are those who study and those who are studied or as expressed by Walter D Mignolo (2009) ‘the first world has knowledge, the third world has culture; Native Americans have wisdom, Anglo Americans have science’ (p.160).

Mignolo (2009) notes that knowledge-making in the West was influenced by two major frames of theology and philosophy. These frames sometimes competed and sometimes collaborated in disqualifying other possible frames and were promoted by European universities in six major ‘imperial’ languages: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, and English. Their foundation was ‘Greek and Latin—not Arabic or Mandarin, Hindu or Urdu, Aymara or Nahuatl’ (p.164). Within this framework, the native intellectuals came to be counted as such if they studied in the metropole and mastered the norms and the discourse of the coloniser (Fanon, 1967/1952 in Mignolo, 2009: 165).

As the order of the world changed following anti-colonial movements worldwide, the power of Europe declined and the United States took over as the world power and in the context of the Cold War, the world was divided into first, second, and third worlds. The anti-colonial movements worldwide, however, did not change the distribution of global power either politically or economically. Within the sciences, ‘the epistemic privilege of the First World’ was maintained and sustained for decades to come. Mignolo (2009) referring to the African, South Asian, and

The Making of a Black Public Intellectual:

A Progressive in the Academy

Kimberly Mayfield Lynch

ABSTRACT

When I think of public intellectuals, Dr Cornel West and Dr William Edward Burghardt Du Bois come to mind. African-Americans have a history of using their academic standing to bring attention to social ills that impact social conditions in their community. This is what I do as a member of the academy and as a member of my local community. Over the last 20 years, I have become a change agent in improving the quality of life for local residents by pioneering programmes to grow our own representatives in education, politics and the police force. This article will discuss what it means for me to be a contemporary scholar—practitioner and public intellectual.

KEYWORDS

Community engagement, critical race theory, education politics

INTRODUCTION

The Black public intellectual tradition has been a part of the United States as long as Black people have been in the United States. Enslaved Africans carried their traditions with them from Africa to America. In many West African villages priests and medicine men were considered intellectuals (Banks, 1996). In their villages, priests and medicine men were considered authorities who provided cultural meaning for natural events such as death, maladies and water shortages in addition to serving as moral guide within the tribe (Banks, 1996). Early Black public intellectuals in America were great thinkers, strategists and orators with varying degrees of formal education and literacy. I consider early Black public intellectuals to be enslaved Africans like Nat Turner and free men of colour like Denmark Vesey who were preachers. They continued in the intellectual tradition of the West African villages (Banks, 1996). I have observed that early and contemporary Black public intellectuals use stories, parables, poems, music and sermons to educate and inform their community (Collins, 1991; Lewis, 2000). The use of storytelling is an important way of talking about race-based injustice and engaging the humanity of the White elite for systemic change. Storytelling is a feature of critical race theory. Abolitionists such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Fredrick Douglass were Black public intellectuals of their time. Their activism was focused on speaking out about the social conditions of Black people and calling for an end to enslavement. Cooper (2016) offered a Black feminist view of the plight of the formerly enslaved and their place in society. Although Cooper was born before the end of enslavement, she earned both bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Oberlin College. In 1924, she earned a doctoral degree at Sorbonne in France making her the fourth Black woman to earn a PhD in the United States. Cooper acknowledges that America does indeed have a race problem. Her thoughts on how to solve the race problem was for each group to be ready to assert its place in society she says:

Storytelling is a feature of critical race theory. Abolitionists such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Fredrick Douglass were Black public intellectuals of their time. Their activism was focused on speaking out about the social conditions of Black people and calling for an end to enslavement.

No shirking, no sulking, no masquerading in another’s uniform. Stand by your guns. And be ready for the charge. The day is coming, and now is, when America must ask each citizen not ‘who was your grandfather and what the color of his cuticle’, but What can you do? Be ready each individual element, each race, each class, each family, each man to reply, ‘I engage to undertake an honest man’s share’ (pp.81-82).

Cooper’s basic premise is that while the nature of human beings in the numerical majority is to attempt to exert their will over other groups, there is a place for everyone. She calls for each group to stand their ground and be confident that they have something to contribute to society. William Edward Burghardt Du Bois earned degrees at Fisk University and University of Berlin and in 1895 became the first Black person to earn a PhD from Harvard University. His many writings provide insight into the Black struggle for social access, equity and justice. Due to his training and education, Du Bois was well positioned to document the racialised experiences of Black people as illustrated in the Philadelphia Negro (Du Bois & Eaton, 1899) and Souls of Black Folk (Du Bois, 2014). The sociological work of Du Bois illuminates the multilayer interlocking system of persistent racial oppression and marginalisation that is institutional racism (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967). There is a distinction between the racism that occurs at the interpersonal one-on-one or group level and the racism that occurs at the organisational societal institutional level (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967). It is in fact the case in present-day society that even though interpersonal race relations may be improving, the impact of institutional racism remains and adapts to the current moment (Van der Valk, 2003). It is important to reiterate that institutional racism is a different form of racism from the racism experienced in interpersonal interactions. Allport (1954) found that when people from different racial groups interact, there is a greater opportunity to reduce racial prejudice and develop meaningful relationships. The positive features governing the intergroup contact are defined by contact theory (Allport, 1954). There are four positive features in contact theory. The first positive feature of contact theory is equal status of the two groups within the situation. This means that regardless of the actual status of the two groups in society, when they come together for intergroup interactions, they are perceived as having equal status and engage as equals (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005). The second positive feature is having common goals for the interaction. This means that the two groups come together in the way sports teams do to win games (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005). The third positive feature of contact theory is intergroup cooperation. Intergroup cooperation means that in the group there is a feeling of interdependence. All group members’ contributions are essential to achieving the common goals of the group (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005). The fourth and final positive feature is the support of authorities or law custom. A few examples of support of authorities or law custom are when social institutions such as churches or schools support intergroup contact and Civil Rights Legislation (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005). Pettigrew and Tropp (2005) completed a meta-analysis of 515 studies on between-group contact and prejudice. Their analysis showed that overall elevated levels of intergroup contact are usually associated with lower levels of prejudice at the individual level.

At the individual level, reducing racist acts is, however, only part of the task. There are systemic barriers to reducing racist practices in society and that takes a massive concerted and persistent effort to change laws, policies, and reduce racial conflict.

At the individual level, reducing racist acts is, however, only part of the task. There are systemic barriers to reducing racist practices in society and that takes a massive concerted and persistent effort to change laws, policies, and reduce racial conflict. Galtung (1969) lays a foundation for Peace Studies and research by defining peace and violence. He asserts that violence is the space between receiving benefits

Pan-African/Black Public Intellectuals as Beacons of Hope: Possibilities of Counterhegemonic Narratives in Higher Education

Alex Otieno

ABSTRACT

This paper emerged from and is part of an ongoing project inquiring into human rights as emancipatory praxis. It highlights historical and contemporary Pan-African/Black public intellectuals as part of the genealogy of human rights discursive practice and seeks to examine and understand the relationship between human actions and their social context. The focus is on how ideas and life stories are useful resources for illuminating the elimination of racial discrimination prior to and after the promulgation of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). I discuss how I have explored Black public intellectuals and historicised Black freedom struggle as a central part of global human rights discourse. Through systematic analysis drawing on reflexive journaling, and artefacts, I discuss the ways that life stories/auto/biographies of Black public intellectuals have constituted critiques of domination in higher education.

KEYWORDS:

Public intellectuals, auto/biography and auto/ethnography, critique of domination, human rights as emancipatory praxis, reflexivity; higher education

INTRODUCTION

What do the following have in common? Ta-Nehisi Coates, Erica Armstrong Dunbar, and Nikole Hannah-Jones, Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, William Julius Wilson, Cornel West, Ibram X Kendi, Henry Louis Gates, Jr, Melissa Harris-Perry and Keith Wailoo. They are examples of Black public intellectuals that have a history of and continue to engage the public in the US and other countries and higher education institutions in discourse on wide ranging public issues. They have informed my work as a sociology and international peace and conflict resolution instructor who teaches human rights and global policy affairs. These individuals and others not listed have also served as reference points and resources for engaging students and prompted me to explore other ‘hidden’ and underappreciated Pan-African/Black public intellectuals.

Public intellectuals (both independent and those affiliated with universities) have and offer ideas, insights and understandings that illuminate historical and current events and public issues. They play a key role in and are a resource for engaging the general public and higher education in discussion on lessons learned from historical and contemporary challenges such as the impact of the intersecting pandemics of COVID-19 and systemic racism in multiracial societies such as the US and South Africa. As a global African whose story and lived experience has involved giving visibility to the life stories and auto/biographies of Pan-African/Black public intellectuals, I believe public intellectuals have been, are and will remain relevant to both public and media discourse and higher education. This paper considers the relevance of public intellectuals as part of an ongoing projection using public intellectuals in teaching and learning, and engaging with policy issues in higher education. It arose from my explorations of the challenges and possibilities of using courses and other gatherings in the university as discursive spaces for interrupting pernicious histories and promoting human rights discourse. It draws on autoethnography––a qualitative research method in which the researcher/author uses self-reflection and writing to explore the lived experiences and connect them to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; 2016; Ellis, 2004). Additionally, autoethnography is understood following Flick (2014) as a pathway to ‘systematically analyze the researcher’s personal experiences in order to understand social and cultural experiences’ (p.534). With regard to my ongoing project, I have also drawn on Bochner and Ellis (1996) to view the purpose of autoethnography ‘as a way for people to engage in the process of figuring out what to do, how to live, and the meaning of their struggles’ (p.111).

As an African-born person domiciled in the US, the ongoing exploration has led me to not only encounter work focusing on Black public intellectuals (Collins, 2005) but to consider how they have been rendered invisible, in some cases, deemed undesirable public intellectuals (Göle, 2017). This experience also illuminated the challenges and possibilities of higher education providing spaces for exposing and challenging the exclusion, erasure, and invisibility of ideas from people of African descent (Ukpokodu & Ojiambo, 2017). Furthermore, it has provided the impetus for recognising and highlighting life stories, memories and histories of Black public intellectuals as a way to counter the history of neglect and disregard of their ideas.

My interests in public intellectuals arose from their usefulness for public understanding as well as their specialist role as public intellectuals (Posner, 2002). As such this paper is informed by concerns around public sociology and deploys Herbert J Gans’ ideas carried in Footnotes (July/August 2002) regarding public intellectuals

(i.e., the scholars, critics, and others who speak to the general public on topical matters in which the public may or should be interested) play a crucial role in modern society. They are not only a bridge between intellectuals, academics, and the rest of society, but they also offer society at least a sampling of intellectual commentary on issues of the day.

In response to Gans, I have pondered the roles of Pan-African Black public intellectuals and how they may be useful resources to be explored by those grappling with social issues in the context of universities. In considering many questions that have emerged, I took Murphy and Costa (2019: 205) as the starting point for considering the role the university might play in advancing and ‘enriching a broader intellectual culture in the public sphere’ with particular attention to exploring how digital scholarship and digital platforms may serve as open spaces for public engagement with the potential to transform the nature of public intellectualism by further “publicising” intellectual life’.

I typically introduce my students to Mazrui (2005) and Oruka’s (1981) views regarding indigenous African thinking and link them to mobility and multiplicity (Appiah, 1992; Gilroy, 1993). The ensuing reflections have tended to lead us to interrogate our engagements with the histories of Black freedom struggle in multiple locations including African countries (Jones, 2020). Recent engagements have included ‘oppositional gaze’ based on critical media pedagogy and Black feminism to promote identity development for Black girls (Jacobs, 2016). I have also recently paired these considerations with Raoul Peck’s film I am not Your Negro (2016) based on James Baldwin’s unfinished book. The visual essay explores racism through the stories of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Additionally, there are now opportunities for a broader discussion that can go beyond the borders of the classroom through Peck’s recent four-part docu-series Exterminate All the Brutes (2021) which addresses the histories of settler colonialism and genocidal practices that accompanied the colonial and imperialist enterprise. These visual stories have been the starting points for conversations in gatherings on campus as well as with friends working outside the university but who have a keen interest in ongoing discussion about race, ethnicity and human rights.

Public Intellectuals in Private Universities: An Edenic Parable from India

Nandini Dhar

ABSTRACT

On 16 March 2021, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a leading contemporary political theorist in India, who has also been consistently critical of the current regime’s politics, resigned from his position as a professor at Ashoka University. Mehta, a couple of years earlier, had also resigned from his position as the Vice-Chancellor of the university, but had continued to teach even after his resignation. Although, not clearly articulated, Mehta’s resignation letter hinted towards the fact that his public writings, critical in spirit about the current regime, had inspired the ire of the university donors. Economist Arvind Subramanian, who was also a professor at the institution, resigned in solidarity, creating a widespread furore in the academic circles in India and abroad. Taking its starting point from the Mehta episode, the essay reflects upon the phenomenon of the emergence of the ‘new’ private universities in India in the post-liberalisation period. Through an analysis of an assortment of materials—university brochures, student testimonies and media reports—the essay shows, one of the central ideological projects of such private universities is predicated upon the creation of transnational Indian elites. This is a process that is achieved not only through instating an imagination of students as consumers, displacing the liberal imagination of the student as a citizen-in-training, but also through obfuscation of the questions of class, caste and capital’s hegemony. The essay concludes that the very project of such private universities in India makes faculty like Mehta and the students complicit in such a project, and in the process, even their resistance comes across as limited and bounded by an inability to question their own class and caste privileges, and in their ideological faith in capital’s ability to deliver beneficial services to everyone.

KEYWORDS

Academic neoliberalism, philanthrocapitalism in education, private universities in India, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Ashoka University, exceptional spaces, class, caste, financialised utopia

INTRODUCTION

On its website homepage, Ashoka University, a new-style, private, liberal arts institution in India, describes itself as

a pioneer in its focus on providing a liberal education at par with the best in the world. The aim at Ashoka is to help students become well-rounded individuals who can think critically about issues from multiple perspectives, communicate effectively and become leaders with a commitment to public service. An Ashoka education carries a strong emphasis on foundational knowledge, thorough academic research based on rigorous pedagogy, and hands-on experience with real-world challenges. The 2250-plus students on campus, drawn from 30 states and over 243 cities in India and 27 other countries, receive a world-class interdisciplinary education through undergraduate and post-graduate programs led by internationally renowned faculty.1

There are two inter-related claims here that characterise the university as a specific kind of institution. One, in its repeated claims of being ‘at par with the best in the world’, the institution gently removes itself from an impending and obvious comparison with the other universities and campuses in India, and locates itself within a field of a much broader influence—the globe. Two, connected to its global aspirations, the university also strives to create a certain kind of subject— ‘leaders’––who also happen to be ‘well-rounded’ with ‘commitment to public service’. There is, then, in the very pedagogical project of the university, no place for an ‘ordinary citizen’. The university, one recognises quickly, is not interested in the work of training ‘losers’. A form of hierarchy is, then, automatically woven into the institution’s essential mission, creating a rhetoric of exceptionalism for anyone who gets to attend the institution as such.

There is, in the very pedagogical project of the university, no place for an ‘ordinary citizen’. The university, one recognises quickly, is not interested in the work of training ‘losers’. A form of hierarchy is, then, automatically woven into the institution’s essential mission, creating a rhetoric of exceptionalism for anyone who gets to attend the institution.

Institution-based notions of exceptionalism are not new in India. In fact, the elite public institutions of higher education (Jawaharlal Nehru University [JNU] in New Delhi, Jadavpur University [JU} in Kolkata, Hyderabad Central University [HCU] in Hyderabad, to name a few) have always generated narratives of their own exceptionalisms. A prevalent slogan in Presidency College (now Presidency University) in Kolkata, an extremely elite public institution in Kolkata, India, which I attended as an undergraduate student, ran thus—‘Presi is Presi, always ahead’. Such notions of exceptionalisms, historically, have often been tied to two things—intellectual and academic merit, and histories of radical student movements within the campus. The two often were also interrelated, the radicalisms of the students (mostly of the left variety) being interpreted as a function of their exceptional intellectual capacities.2 However, institutions such as Ashoka attempt to put a different spin on such notions of institution-based exceptionalisms, tying the latter specifically to the students’ class identities and buying power. In the process, the inter-related issues of class identities and ability to treat ‘world class’ education as a highly valuable commodity only for a selected few is made invisible, thus also rendering obscure the profound ways in which workings of capital and the social relationships thus generated, determine the everyday functioning of such universities.

Established in 2014, and located in a 25-acre land in the Rajiv Gandhi Education City in Sonipat, Haryana, as part of a conversation between corporate leaders, all of whom together, invested around 1.4 billion INR in the university, the institution has been set up by a collaboration between the International Foundation for Research and Education, Haryana, India and University of Pennsylvania, USA.3 Predicated upon the funding of corporate donors, the institution operates as a ‘private’ university, whose unique selling point (USP) is based upon a curriculum that is much different from the public universities and the colleges in rest of the country. Encompassing a four-year undergraduate degree, with ‘majors’ in primary disciplines, such as English, History and Sociology, and inter-disciplinary clusters, the pedagogical structure at Ashoka resembles more of an American undergraduate education, thus inserting students into an already-established ‘global’ educational temporality, which remains tethered, in formal and informal ways, to producing pedagogical subjects whose eyes remain fixed on eventual international migration as an elite professional, which might be achieved through a ‘short-term’ goal of acquiring a postgraduate degree in an institution of higher learning in First World nations, preferably the US and UK. It would not be an exaggeration, then, to say, one of Ashoka University’s pedagogical goals, remains to train aspirant transnational Indian elites.

NEW MODEL

Indeed, Ashoka University, along with a whole host of other similar institutions in India, all of which have initiated functioning within the last decade or so—

In Dialogue with a Young Public Intellectual JTPP Editor’s Interview with Anti-caste Activist Dr Suraj Yengde

Dr Suraj Yengde, an Associate of the Department of African and African-American Studies at Harvard University, is one of India’s leading scholars and young public intellectuals. Named as one of the ‘25 Most Influential Young Indian’ by GQ magazine and the ‘Most influential Young Dalit’ by Zee. Suraj is author of the bestseller Caste Matters and co-editor of award winning anthology, The Radical in Ambedkar.

As part of our editorial outreach for the sixth issue of the JTPP we asked distinguished public intellectuals from around the world to provide written response to five broad questions (see below). While public intellectuals, by definition, regularly engage in publicly challenging how we define and attempt to make change in the world, they are also scholar-practitioners engaged at multiple levels of society both inside and outside the traditional academy. Alas, getting them to speak about their work in dint of their identity as public intellectuals is often fraught with potential definitional pitfalls and positional complexities. Needless to say, many well-known public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Bryan Stevenson, and Ashis Nandy either did not respond to our request or politely, through their publicists, declined to respond. Given the volume of such requests they regularly receive and the demanding schedules of their hybridised global identities, this came as no surprise. We harbour no animosity for this limited response, but on the contrary acknowledge the involvedness of responding to such broad and philosophically important questions. Higher education is at a critical inflection point and the roles of scholar, activist, and researcher are morphing and adapting to new epistemological realities.

As editor of this journal, I believe we must map these changes and create space to understand what they mean for the future of not just the academy, but all of humanity. So, we include this brief section in this special issue on the public intellectual to underscore the intricacy of interrogating what is often regarded in the academy as subjective, as opposed to objective reasoning.1 Increasingly the public role of intellectuals is being thrust front and centre. The idea of the public intellectual is, therefore, in both constant and dire need of interrogation.

This issue on the public intellectual could not have come at a more fraught time in global political consciousness. In post-pandemic times, the lines between higher education and the public sphere are even more tenuous and crucial to understand in creating sustainable human flourishing. As Dr Suraj Yengde’s responses to my broad framing questions are clear, in our current epoch one can no longer separate objective reasoning from issues of justice and accountability. While positivist social science has long aimed to privilege objectivity, our journal is enthusiastic about developing transdisciplinary discussion of the seeming subjectivity of human attempts at peace. In other words, subjectivity, ambiguity, and creativity are as critical to good social science as they are to effective social change. The praxis of peace demands regular reflexive assessment. The role of the public intellectual is critical to the paradigm shift required to question our assumption and take on the wicked problems facing the modern world, such as climate change and lack of international collaboration and cooperation. Public intellectuals are often on the vanguard of international collaboration and cooperation. Our humble attempt at the JTPP is to open important encounters and dialogues, to play our small part in the paradigm shift from a materialist existence to one of collaborative values based on people as opposed to things. In a sense our journal hopes to do the work of the public intellectual––building cooperative bridges and overcoming political polarisation with sound, objective, and critical reasoning.

It is in this light that our editorial team reached out to ten well known public intellectuals and asked the following broad framing questions:

1. How do you see the role of higher education in today’s society?

2. What role does local community engaged research play in the future of higher education?

3. How can academe root out academic arrogance, privilege, and presumption without destroying the traditional aims of the liberal arts, scientific research, and education?

4. What are the impediments a public intellectual is invariably destined to face in academe?

5. How does traditional scholarship and disciplinary training both sustain and subvert attempts to create lasting social change in today’s society?

While these questions are admittedly broad, the aim in asking them was to support the journal’s call for papers by collecting the thoughts of those we would consider worthy of the title ‘public intellectual’. We aimed to give voice and space for autoethnographic interrogation of where the academy stands in our current anti-intellectual world order. Dr Suraj Yengde, named as one of the ‘25 Most Influential Young Indians’ by GQ magazine, we believe fits the title of public intellectual well.

Dr Yengde, an Associate of the Department of African and African-American Studies at Harvard University, is a young Dalit (former untouchable in India) public intellectual and author of the bestseller Caste Matters (Penguin Viking, 2019) as well as over 100 essays, articles, and book reviews in multiple languages in the fields of caste, race, ethnicity studies, and labour migration in the global south. Yengde regularly pens his own newsletter/blog called My Dalitality (https://mydalitality.substack.com/p/my-dalitality) in which he cogently shares about his work and experience. He has been nominated for India’s highest literary honour ‘Sahitya Akademi Award’ and is a recipient of the ‘Dr Ambedkar Social Justice Award’ (Canada, 2019) and the ‘Rohit Vemula Memorial Scholar Award’ (2018). Much of his work and writing is based on his experiences as a Dalit navigating a world and academy not set up for people from his community. He is frequently invited by the media and corporations to offer expert advice on the issues of caste, migration, race relations and international law. Yengde eagerly provided his written thoughts in response to these questions. They have been edited for clarity below. His thoughts on our questions help to contextualise the role of the public intellectual and their important role in knowledge production, which other authors in this sixth issue have both artfully and academically interrogated.

— Jeremy A Rinker, JTPP Editor &

Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies

Dr Suraj Yengde’s thoughts on higher education and the public intellectual appear below:

Higher education is an occasion to systematically think about the normative characters of human mind and society. It is proposed to challenge and simultaneously find democratic ways to advance the collective development of all. This comes with a unique responsibility upon the educator and the student to push the limits of assumptions and put to use the given wisdom. The state of acquiring wisdom is the intention of education. This intention can seem far, many times due to the prominence given to abstractness and esoteric slang. The mere declaration of intent doesn’t clarify the mission of scholarship. For those who idolise prophecy as not limited to hearsay,

Kaleidoscope

A death foretold

Public intellectuals in today’s world are running into rough weather. Sometimes, they even have to put their life at stake. Stanislaus Lourduswamy, a Jesuit priest vocal for the land rights of tribal people and against their arrest and torture in thousands in India’s Jharkhand state, is the latest example. When he breathed his last in a hospital under judicial custody on 19 July 2021, it had become almost a death foretold. For before that, the ailing 84-year old had, allegedly, hardly been provided with the basic necessities needed to sustain his life during the nine months of his incarceration under anti-terror laws. Swamy’s lawyers had to fight a protracted battle in court even to earn the provision of a sipper cup for his Parkinson’s care. Yet, even as he suffered, he exhorted his friends outside in one of his last messages, ‘Please remember my inmates and my colleagues in your prayers. Despite all odds, humanity is bubbling in Taloja (Maharashtra, India) prison.’ Educated abroad, Father Stan Swamy, as he was popularly called, could have easily led a cushioned life. But, one of the strongest influences on him, which prevented him from doing so was that of Paulo Freire, the pedagogue of the oppressed, whom he came close to as a postgraduate student in Brussels. This points at a living tradition of public intellectuals, which knows no frontiers.

Stan was one of about a score of public intellectuals who are in Indian jails in connection with cases linked with Maoist insurgency. In pro-establishment parlance, they are called ‘urban Naxals’, who allegedly work as an auxiliary force to the guerrillas in the rural terrains. People who have been branded as such are the likes of Sudha Bharadwaj, a Massachusetts-born lawyer who has given up her American passport and devoted herself to the defence of workers’ and tribal rights.

See these reports:

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/elgar-parishad-in-jail-humanity-is-bubbling-said-stan-swamy/cid/1821288

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54490554?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Byahoo.north.america%5D-%5Blink%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D

https://thewire.in/rights/bhima-koregaon-case-trying-without-a-trial-is-the-intent-of-draconian-uapa-law

Watch:

An Interview with Fr Stan Swamy by Tapan Bose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJyJENDcVE4

Peeping states

Lawyers for Stan’s co-accused have claimed, on the basis of digital analysis, that some of the ‘incriminating documents’ used as evidence against them had actually been planted in their computers with the help of some malicious spyware. Now, painstaking investigation by a consortium of more than 80 journalists from 17 media organisations from around the world has pinpointed a spyware called Pegasus created by an Israeli company, the NSO Group, that was used by regimes in various countries for peeping and planting operations against their critics. The list of countries where the hacking job is allegedly in progress indeed includes India, but it covers many others as well. One of the dramatic revelations is that it has been deployed to snoop on the slain Arab journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s Turkish fiancée, academic Hatice Cengiz.

The investigation, named ‘The Pegasus Project’, is coordinated by the non-profit media organisation ‘Forbidden Stories’, with technical support from Amnesty International’s Security Lab. Governments denied the surveillance bid and the NSO Group said its spyware was intended to fight terrorism and serious crimes. The media house Frontline has produced a documentary, in collaboration with ‘Forbidden Stories’, on the affair to air on PBS.

Read more at:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-nso-group-pegasus-spyware-found-jamal-khashoggi-fiancee-phone/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jul/19/key-modi-rival-rahul-gandhi-among-indian-targets-of-nso-client?utm_term=df37cc94208412de3e080d1b86f45477&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/over-40-indian-journalists-activists-on-list-of-potential-pegasus-surveillance-targets-1010155.html

Watch video:

How NSO Group’s Pegasus Spyware was Found on Jamal Khashoggi’s Fiancée’s Phone

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-nso-group-pegasus-spyware-found-jamal-khashoggi-fiancee-phone/

Cyber hate

Along with cyber surveillance, public intellectuals are also subject to hate campaigns in cyberspace. The more one is distant from not only the ruling political dispensation but also the dominant social order, the higher are the chances of facing these onslaughts. It rises to monstrous proportions if especially the dissenter is a woman or belongs to a minority sexual orientation or is dark-skinned, for example. A senior and popular journalist in the Philippines is learning to live with all these hazards the hard way.

Death threats. Rape threats. Doxxing. Racist, sexist, and misogynistic abuse and memes. These are just some of the features of the digital attacks that Maria Ressa, the Filipino-American journalist who founded the Manila-based news site Rappler, has faced daily since Rodrigo Duterte came to power in 2016.

This has been revealed in a recent report, ‘Maria Ressa—Fighting an Onslaught of Online Violence: A Big Data Analysis’, brought out by the Washington-based International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), in collaboration with the University of Sheffield and Rappler. Ressa has been spending her time between jail and bail while her abusers go unpunished.

Read the report at:

https://www.icfj.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Maria%20Ressa-%20Fighting%20an%20Onslaught%20of%20Online%20Violence_0.pdf

A new Frontline documentary, A Thousand Cuts, directed by Ramona Diaz, tells the story of her struggle. Watch the trailer at:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/maria-ressa-a-thousand-cuts-documentary-social-media-disinformation-democracy/

Killings in Colombia

The Bogota-based Institute for Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ) has reported that on 18 July 2021 Luis Castrillon, a Colombian social leader and treasurer of the Community Action Board, along with his wife Maria Ramirez, their son Esneyder and another young man named Fray Zapata were murdered in Yolombo town of Antioquia province.

Reports said that ten armed men, who allegedly belonged to Colombia’s Gaitanist Self-Defense Forces, a far-right paramilitary outfit, repeatedly shot at Castrillon and his family members while they were visiting a commercial establishment on the La Cruz sidewalk.

Although a peace agreement had been signed in 2016 between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), there seems to be no end to violence in the country, where social activist leaders are now being specifically targeted. According to human rights defenders, at least 904 social activist leaders and 276 former guerrilla fighters have been killed by paramilitary groups. The Yolombo incident was the 53rd massacre documented in 2021 so far. The paramilitaries are accused of drug trafficking, among other crimes.

Find more information at:

http://www.indepaz.org.co/lideres-sociales-y-defensores-de-derechos-humanos-asesinados-en-2021/

and

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Colombia-Social-Leader-and-His-Family-Murdered-in-Yolombo-Town-20210719-0001.html#

Vigil for a newspaper

All the assaults by the establishments are not going without protest though. Even as Hong Kong’s popular pro-democracy tabloid Apple Daily shut down being unable to withstand the tremendous pressure by the authorities, activists put out an unusual show of solidarity by holding a night vigil between 23 and 24 June 2021 while its last edition was being printed. The morning saw long queues to collect a copy.

The newspaper’s management had earlier announced that it would stop publication out of concern for the safety of its employees. The Chinese authorities have already put behind bars Jimmy Lai, the owner of the 26-year-old paper under a one-year-old anti-terror law after running stories on sensitive subjects such as the wealth of Chinese Communist Party leaders. Its editor-in-chief Ryan Law and deputy editor Cheung Chi-wai were also arrested.

Witness the people’s adieu to the Apple Daily in a streaming video at:

https://www.facebook.com/cheddar/videos/hong-kongs-last-pro-democracy-newspaper-has-officially-closed/221325493015393/

Curated by Nilanjan Dutta

Book Reviews

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance: A Transdisciplinary Approach

By ANNA JOHANSSON & STELLAN VINTHAGEN

pp.226, Routledge

2019, HB/PB

£96/34.39

Reviewed by

MARC CARON

Recent events have sparked street protests, intense scepticism and deliberate avoidance of medically proven and effective vaccines, public anger over restrictions to voting access, among other resistant reactions. These examples prove opposition to political, cultural, and socio-economic conditions are ubiquitous. From the vantage point of both the powerful and the powerless, these events, actions, and intentions are transparent, organised, and intentional. In Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance: A Transdisciplinary Approach, Anna Johansson and Stellan Vinthagen consider resistance practices that are integrated into our everyday lives, often latent and unrecognisable, to form a theoretical framework for determining what resistant acts constitute everyday resistance. Johansson and Vinthagen acknowledge and accept components of prior theoretical frameworks from resistance theorists, especially James C Scott and Michel de Certeau, but attempt to overcome critical limitations. For the authors, Scott’s bifurcation of resistance and power (p.21) and de Certeau’s view ‘that acting “differently” becomes resistance’ (p.22) fail to recognise the entanglement of resistance and power. Instead, Johansson and Vinthagen claim that everyday resistance is composed of many diverse tactics and patterns of action by arguing that ‘resistance consists of practices that have the potential to undermine dominant power relations’ (p.7). The guiding principle connecting resistance to power represents this book’s substantial point of departure from past scholars and results in a dynamic framework for analysing resistance practices. Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance: A Transdisciplinary Approach will capture the interest of readers who want to identify subversive tactics that work to undermine power-over structures from a theoretical perspective. After presenting an organised and thorough critique and assessment of the theoretical underpinnings of their contemporaries, Johansson and Vinthagen contribute a pragmatic analytical framework that adds to our collective understanding of the association between everyday acts of resistance and domination.

In Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance, the theoretical framework is as deliberate as it is intentional. Johansson and Vinthagen juxtapose different theoretical perspectives to define the concept of everyday resistance beginning with an immersive literature review and concluding that the practice and tactics of everyday resistance are composed of an oppositional component [from Scott] and an activity [from de Certeau] (Chapter 2). The decisive critique of these perspectives is where Johansson and Vinthagen introduce a more nuanced approach to defining everyday resistance. The authors contend Scott’s argument is deficient because it disregards the dynamic interaction between resistance and power (pp.44-45). According to Johansson and Vintagen, in contrast to Scott’s perspective, resistance is always reacting to the dominant power structure, and power is always counteracting resistance practices. Further, Johansson and Vinthagen highlight the failure of de Certeau to link power and resistance which the authors contend allows too much latitude for labelling activities ‘everyday resistance’. The failure by Scott and de Certeau to include a dynamic interaction between power and resistance requires Johansson and Vinthagen to find inspiration from Michel Foucault’s concept of power (Foucault, 1978; 1980; 1991). By mainly agreeing with Foucault and arguing the concept of power is always present and operating, Johansson and Vinthagen proceed to connect power to resistance and allow for new forms of resistance to manifest. The authors’ lessons are straightforward: power can be conspicuous or subtle, and, therefore unavoidable; power and resistance are related and dynamic; power and resistance occur across modalities making power and resistance intersectional and decentred; resistance undermines some power dynamics while ignoring others resulting in their entanglement (Chapter 4). Recognising there is no existing definition of everyday resistance that is satisfactory, Johansson & Vinthagen conclude ‘resistance fundamentally exists together with power, and neither phenomenon makes sense without the other’ (p.60).

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance transitions from a theoretical framework to an analytical framework comprised of four categories (repertoires, social relations, spatiality, and temporality). The four core categories are then superimposed in relation to the actors, social context, and time using examples from existing research. Each dimension is scrutinised with an emphasis on a queer lens or perspective supported by notable queer theory and studies. Johansson and Vinthagen effectively avoid any departure from the main thesis that everyday resistance is oppositional and in relation to power, continually arguing the entanglement of power and resistance across each dimension. Rather than elaborating succinctly which specific acts, characters, environments, and time continuum qualify as everyday resistance, Johansson and Vinthagen illustrate the conditions present ‘that help us to analyze the properties of everyday resistance and its interaction with power in different contexts’ (p.82). The outcome is a framework that is practical and applicable in areas of the social sciences and academic research.

It can be argued that several examples Johansson and Vinthagen use to develop and apply their transdisciplinary approach are only mechanisms subordinate populations utilise to survive overbearing power imbalances. This argument could be relevant when the authors discuss the use of disidentification in prison as one example, and, to a lesser degree, when the book concludes by analysing the Palestinian sumūd. In my view, Johansson and Vinthagen exceed any reasonable standard to overcome objections against the composition and validity of their framework by suggesting everyday resistance practices are not intentional and not recognised by the target (p.47). Further, the authors introduce a definition of everyday resistance that is ‘delimited and clear, yet broad enough to include many different forms of tactics in varied contexts, done by different groups and guided by a broad range of norms, intentions or motivations’ (p.183). By always maintaining the connection of resistance to power and the potential of everyday resistance to at least temporarily weaken or disrupt power structures, Johansson and Vinthagen differentiate between practices that are used to survive harsh conditions and extreme power imbalances from everyday resistance practices.

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance adds a significant new perspective to resistance research in the social sciences. Johansson and Vinthagen leave no stone unturned in assessing existing literature on everyday resistance. In bringing attention to the shortcomings of Scott, de Certeau, Foucault and others, Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance offers a vigorous and articulate definition and typology of everyday resistance. The authors position resistance in opposition to power building on this supposition to conclude everyday resistance is an unorganised but regular pattern of acts, hidden (or unrecognisable), and having the potential to undermine existing power structures. This definition is expansive enough to include context, space and time considerations, and the connection of the subordinate to the superordinate power configurations. Further, arguing that everyday resistance and power are engaged in a dynamic interplay, each changing and adapting, allows for classification of future tactics and strategies to be defined as everyday resistance. The analytical framework builds on the phenomenon of everyday resistance to introduce four dimensions of analysis. Concise examples help give meaning and provide clarity to the importance and application of each dimension. Finally, Johansson and Vinthagen apply their framework on Palestinian sumūd to exhibit the historic and contextual application of everyday resistance to power arrangements.

Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance builds upon existing resistance and power theory to construct a transformative framework for analysing everyday resistance practices. Scholars in the field of resistance research will appreciate the meticulous theoretical justification linking everyday resistance with attempts to undermine unequal power structures. Additionally, students pursuing advanced degrees or involved in resistance research will find Conceptualizing Everyday Resistance a novel contribution to the field and a valuable framework for their own understanding of everyday resistance practices. This book has the potential to further develop the complex theory of resistance and power to effectuate our understanding of practices that oppose inequality, structural violence, and power imbalances.

REFERENCES

Foucault, M, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Vol. 1), New York: Pantheon Books, 1978

Foucault, M, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, Milton Keynes: The Harvester Press, 1980

Foucault, M, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Penguin Books, 1991

Realizing Nonviolent Resilience: Neoliberalism, Societal Trauma, and Marginalized Voice (Conflict and Peace)

By JEREMY A RINKER & JERRY T LAWLER

pp.286, New York:

Peter Lang 2020, HB

$99.95

Reviewed by

MICHELLE COLLINS-SIBLEY

What does it mean to be a trauma-informed practitioner of peacebuilding in the 21st century? Jeremy A Rinker and Jerry T Lawler provide a rich tapestry of answers to this question across a range of contemporary disciplinary intersections in Peace and Justice Studies. The volume can be read as a model of those ways in which transdisciplinary practice can create a unity of intellectual frameworks beyond their disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives. The collection fulfils their introductory promise that ‘the contributions to this volume do represent unique examples of the praxis implications for marginalized communities engaged in modern trauma-informed resistance to neoliberalism’ (p.5).

A highlight of the volume may be found in its clear, concise presentation of Neoliberalism from the 1970’s to the current moment along with those ways in which it may be understood not simply as a set of economic principles but also a description of ‘practices and processes which have traditionally been labeled colonialism or neocolonialism’ (p.4) explaining that both ‘[c]olonialism and imperialism resemble neoliberalism in the sense that they elevate unfettered power in the search of domestic benefit without taking stock of humanitarian considerations and the social detritus of such processes’.

Rinker and Lawler’s introductory chapter opens this presentation of neoliberal ideology and it continues with the volume’s first chapter, Michael Minch’s ‘Neoliberalism as a Violence System’. In this chapter, Minch both builds upon the editors’ introduction to neoliberalism and argues convincingly that the ideology does not simply produce violence—as is commonly assumed among Peace and Justice scholars—but that it is violence. He demonstrates that ‘neoliberalism is structured, or “built”, to produce violence. That is, violence is an important purpose of neoliberalism’ (p.19).

Equally useful is the clear and concise overview of collective trauma, specifically collective historical trauma, in the context of the ‘human wreckage’ left in the wake of neoliberal development. In this second chapter, by Rinker and Lawler, ‘Toward Best Practices in Trauma-Informed Peacebuilding: Systematizing Interventions in Protracted Social Conflicts’, the editors move from theory to practice through first, a brief summary of various types of trauma-informed intervention, then a discussion of two cross-cultural case studies. They suggest that not only refugees but also marginalised communities in low-power positions in society may use trauma to build collective resilience and change, noting that there remains a need for further exploration and deployment of trauma-informed peacebuilding approaches and thereby framing the remaining eight chapters of the book. In each of these, the author(s) carefully re-situate their work in the shared consideration of neoliberal ideology/practice, collective historical trauma, and trauma-informed strategies such that they may be read—or taught—independently or in clusters against the background established in the volume’s introduction and initial chapters.

For an example of a thematic cluster approach to the collection, Cindy Brooks Dollar’s ‘Trauma, Yoga, and Trauma Recovery: From the Clinical to the Sociological’ dovetails nicely with the aforementioned chapter, ‘Toward Best Practices in Trauma-Informed Peacebuilding’. Working across the literatures on trauma, the medicalised body, and the social body, Dollar argues for the recognition of ‘social trauma’ which she defines as ‘an experience that interrupts our human potential to genuinely connect with others’ and ‘social trauma recovery’ as necessitating ‘social integration and union through genuine recognition of the dignity and concern for autonomy (p.186); both are experienced viscerally. Yoga is reviewed as a form of somatic therapy and as guiding philosophy, indeed, Dollar characterises it as a social practice in which social responsibility is embodied. Her exploration of yoga as somatic therapy calls to mind Resmaa Menakem’s advocacy of somatic abolitionism—in My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies—as an approach to building nurturing communities and cultures of practice in which racialised trauma—black and white—may be healed. Dollar concludes her chapter with the observation that ‘the core principles of yoga encourage acts of compassionate, social responsibility, self-awareness, deliberate confrontation of repressive conditions, and movement toward unity [. . .] It requires a concentrated, consistent practice of peacebuilding, peacemaking, and service without expectation of reward’ (p.117).

Readers then could move from Dollar’s discussion of yoga as embodied social responsibility in response to social trauma with its implications of community and community building as peacebuilding to Karina V Korostelina’s ‘An Identity-Based Approach to Community Resilience’ in which the author offers a (re)conceptualisation of resilience as at once active community response to the traumas of chronic urban violence and analysis of the dynamics of identity and power in neighbourhoods’ influence on the development of resilience practices. Her exploration of the questions of identity dynamics and power structures in neighbourhoods could complement Joe Cole’s chapter, ‘Ecovillages, Sustainability, and Social and Environmental Healing’, in which the author argues for the global ecovillage movement as a viable model of ‘long term peacebuilding, sustainable community, human and environmental health’ and one which ‘can better address social sustainability, inner sustainability’ along with individual and collective trauma healing (p.243). Cole begins with a consideration of neoliberalism as a system which benefits corporations and wealthy elites, moving to a reconsideration of the Virtue Ethics tradition without its elitist, patriarchal framework and proposing instead an Integrated, Ecocentric Virtue Ethics framework as an invitation ‘to imagine alternative socioeconomic, ecological, and interpersonal systems that promote human and environmental health, well-being, and healing’ (p.246).

This social responsibility—community building as peacebuilding thread moves from the opening chapters—introduction, chapters 1 and 2—through chapters 4 (Dollar) and 9 (Korostelina), to the volume’s closing chapter (Cole), representing five of the collection’s ten chapters. I would be remiss not to at least mention other possibilities including two chapters treating the role of the arts in addressing collective historical trauma—Chapter 5—Shelly Clay-Robison’s ‘The Arts Are Not for Sale: Addressing Cultural Trauma and Prioritizing People over Profit in Yogyakarta, Indonesia’, and Chapter 6––Autumn R Cockrell-Abdullah’s ‘Interrupting the Cycles of Violence: Art, Marginalization and Collective National Trauma in Iraqi Kurdistan’—a discussion of resettling refugees and implications for the problem of pervasive substandard housing for low-income populations in the United States—Chapter 3—Holly Sienkiewicz et al, ‘“It is like we have died, but we are still breathing”: The Trauma of Housing Resettled Refugees within a Neoliberal Model’—as well as Chapters 7 and 8—Margarita Tadevosyan’s ‘Peacebuilding Work in Restricted Political Environments: Local NGO-Government Relations in the South Caucasus’, and Matthew Bereza’s ‘Local Responses to Neoliberalism and Historical Trauma in El Salvador’. Time and space do not permit even a limited extended discussion of these chapters beyond citing their provocative—and informative—titles.

Rinker and Lawler conclude the volume with a brief meditation—‘Afterword and Future Directions—upon their decision to give precedence to neoliberalism, collective trauma and marginalisation, wondering which is the primary human impulse: ‘acquisitiveness to privilege ownership of property and wealth’ for personal use, or ‘a need to differentiate and elevate ourselves over others based on some observable group characteristics’ (p.273). While their decision was to privilege the former impulse over the latter, they conclude by expressing the hope that this choice does not discourage ‘scholars and activists focused on critical race theory and/or feminist theory’ from engaging with the work. It does not, quite the contrary. These thoughtful and thought-provoking chapters are a rich and powerful resource for scholars, teachers and students alike committed to engaging with the intersectional complexities of modern and postmodern forms of ‘Othering’.

In Memoriam

Dr Terry D Beitzel (1967-2021)

This is the first, yet likely not the last, memoriam to appear in our still young pages. As editor of the JTPP, I thought it important that such a first be dedicated to a young peace and justice studies scholar that the world lost way too soon. With COVID-19 ravaging the earth this past year and a half for many the pain and loss has been shocking and acute. While it is human to lose those that inspire us, it takes a collective effort to grieve, and yet not forget, their important life testimony. It is in this vein that we include this brief memoriam to the passing of an adept young scholar of peaceful nonviolence. While many have been lost to COVID-19 since 2019, the passing of Terry Dean Beitzel on Friday, 29 January 2021, hit the peace and justice community particularly hard.

Terry, a friend, and colleague to many, was the Professor, Justice Studies Department, James Madison University, USA and Director of the Mahatma Gandhi Center for Global Nonviolence. Founder and first Editor-in-Chief of the ‘International Journal on Responsibility’, Terry was a voracious reader, scholar and coalition-builder. One of his most recent contributions to the production of knowledge came in 2019 when Terry, along with co-author Calvin Redekop, published ‘Service, The Path to Justice’ (Friesen Press), a book that argues that serving others, a critical basis for human survival, is the only way to eradicate injustice and usher in peace. Such work speaks to Terry’s tireless faith in, and work for, peace and justice. In addition to this book and his laborious journal editing work, Terry was the author of more than eight journal articles, five book chapters, and multiple reviews and reports.

I first met Terry as a classmate in my doctoral programme at George Mason University, USA. It was immediately apparent that he was one of the most astute people in the room in any class. Terry presented an intellectual confidence that was admirable and intimidating, even in the face of an obvious stutter. Struggling to get his words out did not diminish the impact of what Terry had to say! Everyone in class quickly realised that Terry was a treasure house of knowledge. Having spent many years at Harvard studying the history and philosophy of science as well as actively providing research assistance to the International Criminal Court (ICC), Terry was the definition of what we all aspired to: the quintessential scholar-practitioner. Terry came to the study of peace in the same roundabout way that many of us also had, but he had clarity of purpose many of us, including myself, at least initially did not possess.

Warm, funny and approachable, Terry argued cogently, yet humbly—a feat rare in academia. My last memories of Terry are at two Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA) Annual Conferences where we had a chance to re-unite after both graduating from George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR, now called the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution) in 2009/2010. Always up for a beer and chat, in 2014, I ran into Terry (almost literally) stepping onto a shuttle bus at the PJSA Annual Conference at the University of San Diego. I was yet to be a board member of the PJSA (that came later in 2018), but he was looking for PJSA’s leadership to discuss the possibilities of this conference coming to James Madison University (JMU) the following year. Always eager to learn, Terry asked me my perspectives on the organisation, the annual conference, and those core members of this academic cum activist organisation whom I knew. This was Terry’s first time attending a PJSA conference. Rather than meeting the leadership of PJSA immediately, he proposed we sit and have a beer to discuss the organisation, our current research, and just catch up. Soon we had a large outside table filled with peace and justice studies colleagues debating everything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to our home universities’ administrative structures. The following year, I again saw Terry at the PJSA conference. He had succeeded in bringing the annual PJSA conference to his home institution, JMU, as promised, and we again had a chance to reconnect, this time on the east coast. Such chance meetings can easily be forgotten with the passage of time, but it is in these mundane moments of connection that our real humanity comes out. One can pontificate all day long about the great scholarship and ideas that Terry put into the public sphere, but it was the human connection that he always felt mattered the most. In my experience of Terry this was unspoken, but always clear.

Terry Beitzel died of complications from COVID-19, one of many to claim this broad cause of death over the last years. He will be missed; a scholarly life cut short too soon. The sense of dread and sorrow in the unreached potential is palpable. But as I remember his humanity, I feel the richer from having experienced it. May you rest in peace, my friend. I know you knew you were loved, cherished, and respected. I hope that you realised the vast impact your humanity undoubtedly had on countless others.

Terry is survived by wife Sylvia Whitney Beitzel and daughter Myra Whitney Beitzel, among many other relatives and friends. The Beitzel Memorial Fund has been established in his memory.

Dr Terry D Beitzel’s full obituary can be found at the following link:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/washingtonpost/name/terry-beitzel-obituary?pid=197644309

With Metta,

JEREMY A RINKER