Interesting and your arguments make a lot of sense. Yet this complicity is something I continue to struggle with, and thinking through, is part of my own critical reflection on where to go.

A long time ago Spivak talked about reducing internal fragmentation in the left on matters of race, as part of our commitment to resisting hegemony. She called it ’strategic essentialism’. I wonder if we could take this idea a little further, push a bit more and see where it takes us.

Butler for example, seems to have been arguing about the limits of secular(ism) and the need for coalitions as a specific tactic of resistance. Shamser points out this coalition politics has been going on for a while now- and it’s nice that liberalism and feminism is joining the streets.

The debate seems to point to tactics of resistance.

Could we say, given the current climate where we play into geo-politics ( on a global scale) and a progressive denigration of Muslims ( on a national , global or local scale ) we might want to strike a strategic silence – not because we cannot accept the logic that oppression has to be opposed, irrespective of 9/11 geo-politics, but because we might agree that we are living through a terrible time at the moment, and one tactic of resistance, at this given time/place and geography, might be to remain silent. Kinda like a different play on the phrase, ‘Not in my Name’. I am thinking here of smart acts of resistance, a clearly thought out, strategic politics to counter the hegemonic exploitation of our own fight for freedom and rights. Just a thought.

Some interesting points there. I agree with much of what Pink Cloud of Death has already said very well so I won’t repeat it again! I think critical reflection on one’s work and its consequences is important, and that this is that case for academics (and practitioners such as social workers) at all levels and of all backgrounds. External critique also has an important role to play because as your article highlights, our experiences and social location shape our perception and knowledge of the world around us. But I guess your point is that some people’s critical reflection gets more attention and acclaim than others. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think can and should be done about that. Do you think this is something that is ever likely to change in a hierarchical setting like academia?

Interesting piece. I haven’t got access to the original lecture so will be responding mostly to your ideas….

On the hand, I’d agree with you that sometimes ideas of coalition politics hit the academic radar late compared to the pace at which they are taking place – that would make sense, after all, ivory towers take longer to accept and circulate ideas than the activists on the ground. Living in the city, and some parts of the city in particular, necessitates coalitions, negotiating every day encounters, and building alliances to just get by… let alone reflecting on coalitions for writing papers on causes.
On the other hand, I read ages ago something by Derek Gregory on how organized political violence has been legitimized through complex imaginative geographies. It seems to me what Butler is alluding to, liberal academic complicity in the war on terror, which isn’t rocket science to you, but is to lots of people. How many people would agree Orientalism is revived and called the War on Terror – not many I imagine.

For me, though, Judith, and her peers, are possibly wondering what they have contributed to over the past decade, possibly a Frankenstein, and are exercising some reflexivity and critical thought on how to engage with politics of progress without letting these objectives be used and hijacked by their opponents. This seems to me, the major challenge of the day for left-leaning academics: how to avoid academic violence and complicity in the War on Terror.

I very rarely comment or criticize on women’s rights in Afghanistan, Iran or elsewhere, or the space for LGB in the Muslim world. I am deeply committed to minority rights, and remain concerned about its abuse, but I’d maintain that these not the only stories that represent the narratives of Afghanistan, Iran, or China.

And, too, right, the emerging armies of black and Asian academics should stop taking on research looking into ‘women’s abuses’ in Tower Hamlets or Pakistan as part of the same regime that creates a landscape that eventually justifies intervention and legitimating political violence. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the intervention, but merely pointing out that we should all be aware of our complicity and actions.

For academics to engage in politics for progress – it might be better to comment, say, on freedoms in London’s (or Paris, New York) streets than elsewhere – where actually the moral high-ground for whether we should intervene in the globe, is won or lost. That’s where the real battles for hearts and minds is taking place – not in Baghdad or Kabul. You are doing this everyday, and others will be reclaiming and fighting in every day spaces, as you say, in a myriad of ways.

Who you are matters more than what you say is problematic and worrying if we want to see change take place quickly. But perhaps not a white thing, more to do with knowledge, discipline and power. Some, including Judith Butler, might say knowledge and discipline for years was a way of controlling ‘race’ and sexual politics. Is still.

On a parting note, I always maintain that this sort of critical self reflection is best done by those who are part of the academic/race hegemony, than those outside it, it goes something like the principle that I’d rather a ‘white’ person be a champion for ‘race’ than a black colleague – you know what I mean?