On being an activist-academic...

I often describe myself is as an ‘activist-academic.’ (I use the hyphen rather than a dash or a space not for any other reason that the fact that a friend of mine has a hyphen in her surname and it has always given me ‘name envy.’)

But what does this mean? How does one ‘do’ activist-academia? To be honest, I do not know exactly know what being an activist-academic involves and I believe that that there is no single model academics follow to become activists (or activists follow to become academics for that matter).

It is a fair question to ask – especially at a time when fulltime positions are hard to come by and many of the post-grads that are working to complete their PhDs are desperate for a job and can be seen to be hostage to their institution. As such, the precarious nature of their position means that they do not want to ‘rock the boat.’

I am lucky – obtaining a fulltime academic position within two years of graduating: all about being in the right place at the right time. It was not too long ago that in addition to doing my PhD, I did nine tutorials and gave lectures across three institutions. I was also employed by Oxfam Hong King and actually commuted a few times from Sydney to Hong Kong.

While in Hong Kong, I took part in several protests and at one point was tear-gassed: all about being at the right place at the wrong time. At the time I remember thinking that being arrested in a foreign country would not look good on my academic record: even if it was for something banal like supporting the Korean farmers.

Upon reflection, maybe an activist-academic can be someone who attempts to link their research passions, with their politics and reflect this in their teaching (both in the style and the substance). That is, there is no point talking about the injustices of a class system that limits opportunities to education without acknowledging that there are some students who, because of work, are going to need the lecturer to be flexible even if is inconvenient to the lecturer.

So, how do we balance our activism with our life as an academic – especially one that operates within institutional boundaries? It is this question that was raised by a number of post-graduate students at University of Western Sydney in their reading group.

The issue is addressed in three separate articles from a special 2008 edition of Antipode (vol. 40, no. 3) that were distributed for discussion, which are:

• Doreen Massey, “When theory meets politics”, pp.492-97;
• Don Mitchell, “Confessions of a desk bound radical”, pp.449-54; and
• Jenny Pickerill, “The surprising sense of hope”, pp.482-88.

The three articles take a very different approach to what being an activist-academic means. Massey’s article begins with a drive in the streets of Caracas, Venezuela, as she reflects life as a ‘public intellectual.’ As Massey is driven around, she notices signs of activism and begins to consider how our work can be part of an emancipatory process.

The key thing that I really liked with this article is the way Massey concludes by noting that theory is best developed by interacting with the world around us: it is more robust and much more useful. This interaction with activism is how we can develop theory and make it better.

For Massey then, we can see academic-activism as the process of developing theoretical postulations that are based on the world around us and which are useful to those who are attempting to bring about emancipatory change.

The second article is by Don Mitchell who, as the title suggests, is struggling to reflect on his worth as an academic in progressive politics. I was a bit frustrated reading this – felt like yelling at him to ‘get over it.’ I mean, not everyone is cut out to be tear gassed, do a ‘lock on’ or read Delueze (or possibly do all three) – we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Mitchell laments, in part, the way he is stuck behind a desk but also acknowledges that there is information produced by the academic that can be used in social change and progressive politics. This conclusion is hardly surprising.

The important dimension of Mitchell’s work is that he reminds us that, just like activism, there is no ‘one way’ to be an activist-academic. Some people protest, others work in soup kitchens, others interact with activists and some are organisers themselves. Just like there are activists all over the world using different tactics, there is room for academics to work towards change using different strategies.

The third of this collection of articles is by Jenny Pickerill. This is the article that I could relate to the most, as it seems Jenny – I kind of feel like I am on a first name basis with her as a result – is actually an activist who becomes an academic. This reflects my own journey.

This article sees Jenny struggle in her move from organiser to someone now working in an institutional setting. She wonders if her research is simply sucking the intellect out of the activist community who she often feels she is taking advantage of. That is, by spending time with activists with the aim of publishing, she feels that it is more about furthering her own career rather than taking part in the process of social change.

Jenny also moves to discuss the issue of sustainability. In her journey, she figures out that her strength is writing – much like the above authors – so why spend time getting arrested on the frontline of a protest when discussing the issues faced is much more her strength (and writing is her passion).

----

There are three important themes that emerge from these readings that I think are important in the journey of an activist-academic. The first is that teaching is a form of activism. This is not just teaching in the classroom setting, but the process of producing research. The question that is important is who we are teaching and writing for. I mean, we all need to publish in obscure academic journals, but why should we not turn these articles into accessible publications also – looking at various outputs including fact sheets, newspaper articles and even letters to the editor. It is with such information that activists can be armed to confront injustice.

The second theme that is important here is that we should try and limit the gap between activism and academic. The gap is a socially constructed one and we need to accept movements for change require a broad range of skills and people: is the person handing out the leaflets demanding a just system for refugees any more ‘hardcore’ than the person writing the leaflet? The answer is not necessarily so – and it may even be the same person. The divide between the two borders on irrelevant.

The process of research itself is political – and by researching and providing information academics are adding to the momentum for change. To dismiss this contribution smells of anti-intellectualism – no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on.

The third theme is that we sometimes need to get over ourselves. I mean that, while reflexive thinking is important in this journey, it is also essential not to take our roles too seriously. We should not see ourselves as tortured artists paralysed by a fear that we are not doing the right thing, but as having an important role to play in a global process of solidarity. (For my own work, I carry around a bunch of neuroses and insecurities. I stress that it is not good enough or that I may get the representation wrong of the groups that I work with.)

As Jenny says, however, what is important is looking for the spaces of hope. These are the ones that we need to highlight and slowly link together with the belief that radical and progressive change is possible. Talking about both the issues that need to be changed and identifying the change required is part of the journey that is what being an activist-academic is all about – it is part of producing spaces for change. You just have to figure out how to follow your own journey.

Alvin Y. So's discussion on New Dependency Theory

Alvin Y. So (1990) Social change and development: modernization, dependency, and world-system theories, Sage Publications, Newbury Park

Overview
Alvin So wrote this book in 1990 and is looking at Cardodo’s ‘new dependency theory.’ So argues that it is popular because of the following reasons:

• It is historical-structural: that is, it can identify the historical uniqueness of a given dependency situation – explaining each situation specifically;
• There is also a focus on the internal structures of dependency: meaning that we see a focus on the socio-political causes of dependency not just economic ones. Therefore, we see a focus on both the people within a nation and coerciveness of their own institutions.

So also acknowledges the complex relationship between local and international causes and particularly class interests. To deal with this, he calls for “an internalisation of external interests.”

So does not see dependency theory as ‘structural determination’: that is, that the structures immediately result in a pre-determined result. Rather, dependency theory is an open-ended process. Consequently, if we are given some of the same structures, a range of outcomes are possible which are dependent on a range of political alliances and social movements. While structures influence, there is no definite trend or direction that they result in.


Associated dependent development
Cardoba dismissed classical critique of military coup in Brazil: rather, he saw it as ‘associated dependent development’. This approach combines two statements that appear contradictory: dependency and development.

This is a new phase driven by the ongoing expansion of Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) that result in an invasion of industrial capital in periphery economies and leads to a new international division labour. Development occurs if the interests of the TNCs match those of the periphery nation. This, however, does not always lead to the ‘modernisation path’ – regression can and does occur in nations.

He also argues strongly, that a nation not should rely on TNCs setting up – rather, each nation must assert itself into the circuit of international capitalism.

To understand developments, there is a need to look at both foreign domination and domestic political forces: and these are dynamically interrelated and change. So presents three political actors here: the military, TNCs and bourgeoisie (p.142). This analysis has seen the emergence of ‘triple theme development studies’ – which has been applied in many areas.

O’Donnell’s bureaucratic-authoritarian state (B-A)
The bureaucratic-authoritarian state has a number of characteristics including:

• A dominance by bureaucrats;
• Political and economic exclusion of the many;
• A process of de-politicisation; and
• The deepening of dependence on capitalism.

The B-A state emerges only if corporations are willing to invest in the longer term – which is driven by a belief that there is a profitable and stable economy. To attract capital, then the B-A state must eliminate any threats that emerge towards this. Both the process of development and the elimination processes take time and are precarious. This process, driven by bureaucracies, may even mean there is a need to confront and faced challenges from old and established allies. This is a process that also relies on international institutions such as World Bank and the IMF for recognition.

When international capitalism begins to enter a nation in sustained fashion we see the concentration of power. If this leads to economic growth and development, then it is likely that we see control eased.

In what sounds familiar even today, the B-A state claims it is representing and pushing for what is best for the nation. Those who are excluded are asked to participate vicariously. This creates complex power relations, encouraging competitive capitalism to permeate everywhere except where capital flow are concerned – which continue to be monopolised by the elites. As a result, the relationship between the B-A state and international capital is described as ‘mutual indispensability.’

O’Donnell saw two ways for the BA state to fall: either it does not fulfil obligations and is forced to pass power to other elites, or it is successful and gives up its control (though remaining a power broker).

O’Donnell wrote this in the 1970s at the height of BA power.


Evan’s analysis of Brazil
Following the development ‘miracle’ in Brazil, its economy collapsed in the 1980s. Evan’s argument is that a changing external environment and internal contradictions caused this.

Evan’s sees this happening around a triple alliance of interests: the state, TNCs and local capital. While they often cooperate, Evan’s also believes these can also be in conflict. In Brazil then, we had the contradiction of dependent development were we get economic growth that benefits the few while the many suffered.


Gold and Taiwan
Gold was interested in understanding how far dynamic development could proceed without abandoning dependency theory, taking his analysis from Latin American model to SE Asia.

Gold’s focus is Taiwan, and how it moved towards Japan post the Chinese revolution, and began to implement export-led industrialisation (which included export processing zones and capital inflows. The transition has not been smooth with boom and trough, but there has emerged a dynamic dependency with deepening levels of industrialisation.

Unlike classical theorists, Gold sees Taiwan as ‘new factory imperialism.’ He is, however, quite optimistic, arguing that selective capitalism can assist nations develop in many positive ways.


Conclusion
New dependency theory has modified many of dependency theory’s assumptions – moving from determinism to dynamic in both internal and external factors. This gives us a more sophisticated analysis and includes:

• Ensuring historical factors are considered;
• A strong focus on internal and socio-political activities
• Looking at the links between dependency and development.

My thoughts on this: I am thinking that much of these writings are still relevant today - it is always possible to dismiss the flaws in these theories, but they provide us with an important understanding of historical developments and how nations become dependent. This retards their 'development' because it is an unequal power relationship.

The attitude that emerged in the neoliberal world, however, is one that all states are equal, and historical factors do not count. These theorists remind us that they do!

Andre Gunter Frank: Theorist of underdevelopment

...I recently went back to read Frank’s theory of dependency. While many trash it and would point to the miracles of India and China as proof that ‘low-income’ nations can take a magic path to development, there is a lot to learn from Frank.

Frank is defined as a ‘development theorist’, and argued that development and underdevelopment are essentially two sides of the same coin. This is because underdevelopment results from a development that occurs through exploitation and suppression: which are a necessary component of the West's wealth accumulation and development.

On that point, by the way, there is a bunch of reasons while parts of China and India are doing so well – and in many ways, Frank’s arguments provide us insights around the satellite/centre reliance that has occurred within both China.

So, here is a solute to Frank and his work – done my reminding us of some of the important insights that he has provided us.

Frank’s analysis evolves around colonialism and imperialism – but he also stressed that it was not about substituting this ahead or in replacement of class analysis – rather a compliment to it.


Part 1: history

Frank begins his analysis by arguing that capitalism brings inevitably creates under-development: this is a systematic feature of capitalism that must be confronted. Frank’s project is to look the limitations of capitalism and how the demands to industrialise and develop lead to continued under-development of satellite nations. To do this, he looks at the ‘so-called’ inefficient and poor Brazilian Agricultural economy and argues that it is caused by international capitalist flows that place demands on poorer nations.

Frank then turns to remind us of the history and historical economic, colonialist and imperialist processes that have created the current capitalism-satellite relationships between nations: that is, we have powerful, wealthy nations in the centre (US and Europe), and smaller nations on the semi-periphery (such as Australia) and poor nations as satellites on the periphery. It is the exploitation of the satellite states that allows the wealthy to stay wealthy. Noting this, Frank states:

…it is fruitless to expect underdeveloped countries of today to respect the stages of economic growth passed through developed societies (p. xii)

Frank also argues that language is important – more implicitly than explicitly – noting that there is damage done when we describe people from the ‘third world’ and say that they are ‘backward’.

Importantly, Frank believes that the process of imperialism have concentrated wealthy within poorer nations – a concentration that continues to ensure that they stay on the periphery.

Combining these various streams, Frank’s key conclusion is that national capitalism together with the high level of concentration of wealth means that capitalism offers little, if any, way out of Latin America’s underdevelopment

So, given this colonial past, we cannot expect this capitalist structure to ever liberate the low-income world – rather, the role of promoting real development has fallen to the people alone. Frank argued that it was the responsibility of the intellectual to support these struggles. But to understand what people in low-income nations really need and want, Frank notes her had to “free myself of the liberal maxim” (p. xiv).

Frank then notes that we he first started his work, he believed that the problems of development were largely domestic – but for many, the problems are cased by liberal ideology that puts pressure on individual development and wealth.


Part 2: Internal colonialist development and capitalist underdevelopment

In this section Frank turns to expand his point that the imperialist project also led to internal colonialism. Imperialism should be viewed not as a specific series of events but fundamental to capitalism itself.

The internal colonialism has led to a concentration of wealth and power which leads to a polarisation of wealth because of the:

1. Concentration of investment in both the public and private sphere;
2. The emergence of a regressive taxation structure; and
3. A transfer of capitalism from poor to wealth areas.

Analysing this, Frank argues that we get similar patterns internally as emerge in the international satellite structures. There is an exploitation that occurs between the national ‘centres’ and the periphery – especially the rural areas. This leads to single crop production that can lead to further reliance by the periphery.

Colonialism also gave rise to a structure that benefited a specific landed class. This resulted in a concentration of income to a few individuals and families. In this way, ‘development’ leads to a loss of land for many. Farmers, therefore, move from tenants to agricultural wage earners – which ultimately leads to a fall in the quality of life.

This is cemented by tax concessions and subsidies that assist in the concentration: monetary and fiscal policies that assist wealthy farmers at the expense of farmers. The system is unlikely to change as it benefits those in charge.


Part 3: Imperialist development and capitalist under-development

One idea that Frank continues to come back to in his arguments is that under-development is driven by structural cause. In an insight that many of those theorists that are concerned about the excess of free markets – including me of course – that when the markets fail the solution is more access to markets, Frank argued that the very policies that have caused problems are the ones that are re-introduced.

He also argued that there are many important economic issues, such as terms of trade, which are used take the focus away from the real structural problems causing under-development.

He then turns to make two broad arguments that I suppose would be dismissed today. The first is the argument for ‘import substitution’. Importantly, Frank states that it has to be a specific form and around specific goods, can work. In its current form, however, it does not work and mainly aggravates the problems of development.

The second point that Frank makes is that technology continues to be expensive and continues to keep the periphery reliant on the core. This has changed somewhat, but access to technology that is both affordable and appropriate continues to be a problem 40 plus years after Frank wrote this work.

In finishing this section, Frank argues that there is little chance in overcoming the crisis of under-development within the very system that produces it (p.213).


Conclusion

Frank concludes by returning to the issue of Brazil – which he sees as continually becoming ever more integrated in the metropolis/satellite structure of the world capitalist system. Within this system, there is little chance to act independently: for those who though that the left leaning president, Lulu, would change this have seen just how integrated Brazil is in this periphery/core system. Frank concludes by saying that to change this, we must see the system changed the masses of people rather than the elites who have been captured (p.217).


Frank, A.G. (1967) Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America; historical studies of Chile and Brazil, New York, Monthly Review Press

Theorists: Understanding Antonio Gramsci

(or why Gramsci is the dude)

James Arvanitakis

This is a (very) brief introduction to the work of Antonio Gramsci: who I think is an important and influential thinkers even 70-years after his key work. His insights have much to offer us in understanding the world and how to change it: especially if you are involved in education.

There is a great deal written about Gramsci – and it is not possible to do his work justice here, but here I provide an overview of some of his key concepts. Gramsci is considered a theorist from the Marxist tradition – though much of it saw him diverge from this school of thought as he moved to highlight areas Marxists ignored.

Gramsci was an Italian theorist who was set to jail for his revolutionary actions, and it in prison he wrote his famous work: The Prison Notebooks (in the 1930s). It was, as the title suggests, written in prison – and it is in prison he died.

The importance of Gramsci’s work is that he prompts us to question everything around us including what we consider to be ‘commonsense’ in our culture.

Culture and hegemony

Gramsci recognised that the diverse forms of national and international culture were never neutral or sperate from politics: culture, which often seems natural, is bound with power, control and leadership – and is also historical. Gramsci saw and important link between culture and politics – but this is not a simple or straightforward one.


(When I am referring to culture, I am talking about the routines, rituals and beliefs that dominate everyday life: see my previous blog for an in-depth discussion.)


Culture is often reproduced in a way that assists in maintaining the status quo by reflecting and reproducing the established power structures in a way that seems ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. That is, these structures seem to make commonsense and have always been that way. In this way, power structures are constantly reproduced and we consent to this even if they negatively affect us. This was a concept that Gramsci described as hegemony.


Gramsci explain then, that power was maintained, not just by the threat of violence and coercion, but also through ideology. This culture establishes commonsense values that reflect what suits those already in power – that is, the capitalists. These values are also picked up and accepted by the working class who support structures that negatively impact them rather than revolt.


Therefore, Gramsci saw control as much more sophisticated based on both force (coercion) and consent (hegemony). This was achieved through a complex series of cultural, political and ideological practices that cement society into a relative – though never complete – unity.


Gramsci also argued that the dominant cultural values of the ruling class were tied to Christianity: meaning that much of his attacks on the hegemonic culture are also aimed at religious norms and values that dominated Europe.


Hegemony was used by Gramsci to explain why capitalism was entrenched in western societies even if a majority of people were suffering.


Importantly, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is linked to the capitalist state. The state is not to be understood in the narrow sense of the government but moves into the ‘private’ (non-state) sphere, including the economy.

Culture and power


Gramsci argues that we need to free ourselves of seeing culture as something that is made up of encyclopaedic knowledge, receptacles of empirical data and a mass on uncorrelated facts. Culture is not something that is external but internal to us: that is, it is about one’s ‘self’. In other words – and as I noted above – culture is historical, not natural.


That is, we can understand changes in political culture – and the power that we reflect through everyday practices (or hegemony) through historical reflection.


In the 1930s, Gramsci began looking at the concrete forms of cultural organisations – such as schools, churches, newspapers and so on – that keep ideological world in movement and examined how they function in practice. That is, how these institutions ensure power continues to support current structures. In other words, Gramsci felt that these institutions did not challenge power structures but, rather, supported them.


Changes to established power structures have only been proceeded by criticism and a spread of ideas to people who are at first resistant because they are dealing with their immediate circumstances. These people, because of their focus on their immediate circumstances do not get political (or have no solidarity).


We can think how today, many of us are too busy with uni, paying rent or mortgages to support protesters even if we agree with them!


One problem that Gramsci saw, which stopped change happening, was large gap between intellectual groups and the popular masses. One reason for this was that there is no single (or homogenous) conception of the type of change that we want: something that we still see today. The result is that the intellectual groups are scattered while real change can only happen through collective movements.



Confronting power – making change


The answer then, is for working class and other opposition groups to develop their own culture that would replace what is currently seen as natural or normal. For example, taxation benefits us through government services, but we have come to believe that it is a negative thing. This new cultural position should attract both the intellectuals and the oppressed.


For Gramsci, this raised the need for cultural-social unity through which brings together dispersed wills with heterogenous aims into a single objective. This would lead to a new social order that it would be produced and re-produced, bringing together institutions, social relations and ideas. This also highlights the importance of language that allows a single cultural chant.


Gramsci believed intellectuals have an important role in society. ‘Modern intellectuals’, Gramsci believed, did not just theorise, but were also organisers who built society and help produce hegemony by means of institutions such as education and the media.


It is here that Gramsci felt there was potential for change. Because he believed that each social class produces from its own ranks intellectuals 'organically'. The 'organic' intellectuals do not simply describe just social life, but rather articulate, through the language of culture, the feelings and experiences that the masses find it hard to.


Gramsci called on those intellectuals that came from the working classes to promote a kind of education that would challenge the status quo.



Ideology, popular beliefs and commonsense

Gramsci, when looking at the concept of commonsense, wanted to criticise how previous thinkers – including Marxists – neglected the area of consciousness

For Gramsci, ideas are real (or material) forces. This is, because consciousness is not just born but structured in certain ways to reflect the general organisation of society. This was not meant to be a ‘conspiracy’. Rather, to highlight how the way that ideas and philosophy come about are complex: are something that ultimately reflects power structures.

Gramsci argued that there are three ways that elites link together:

• Language,
  
• Commonsense, and
  
• Folklore (that is, a form of popular religion, opinions, ways of seeing things and superstition)
  
  

Commonsense was key for Gramsci as it is pervasive but unsystematic: that is, while it is the basis of popular experience, it does not represent a unified conception of the world as philosophy does. Here philosophy is an intellectual order, which neither religion nor common sense can be. There are various philosophies or conceptions of the world – and one makes a choice between them – the question is how is this made? The philosophy that we come to accept and live by is also a political action.

The social basis of these ideas is that we come to belong to a group that gives us social elements of thinking and acting. This gives us something to conform to. In this way, our personalities are composite.

Sources

Bottomore, T. (1992) The Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell Publishers,

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers

Jay, M. (1986) Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukacs to Habermas, University of California Press

Boggs, C. (1984) The Two Revolutions: Gramsci and the Dilemmas of Western Marxism, South End Press