Re: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux

["Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it is important for Marxists to hold onto notions of scholarly 
rigour in opposition to post-modernist or functionalists relativisation of 
truth. Without that, we lose many weapons with which to fight the lies of 
our enemies (on this subject, I think Chomsky (though no Marxist) is very 
good). Strategies that allow for woolly or insubstantiated theories or data 
to be used in the interests of political expediency, or in the name of some 
neo-Stalinist wish to 'speak in the language of the masses' (thus avoiding 
nuance, complexity or anything that gets in the way of an unequivocal 
didactic message) will always benefit the populist right more than they will 
us; by legitimating such strategies we (inadvertently) strengthen their our 
modus operandi. And this is an issue when writing for the mass market as 
well (look at the relative proportions of serious progressive social history 
compared to glamorous soap-opera like books about the Medicis or other 
aristocrats in the history section of any mainstream bookshop).

This is a bit general compared to the specific issue of Ward Churchill, I 
know; it seems like there may be some grounds for asking questions about 
parts of his scholarship. This should only be an issue if there is a marked 
difference between his own work and that of other colleagues and 
contemporaries. In my own academic field of musicology, there are some 
really shockingly low levels of scholarship, not least amongst many writing 
of a left-liberal or sometimes Marxist position (this may reflect simply on 
the near-invisibility of the subject to a wider public in a way that 
couldn't be said of, say, certain historical scholarship on Nazi Germany or 
Soviet Russia). Avoiding criticising this because of the particular politics 
involved does no-one any real favours; the work and arguments concerned 
would be very much strengthened (and less open to easy dismissal or mockery) 
if built upon rigorous scholarly investigation.

Richard Evans's In Defence of History is very good on this subject. A 
moderate left Social Democrat rather than a Marxist, he is nonetheless 
acutely aware of many issues that equally concern us. He founds his argument 
on the basis that without a notion of scholarly objectivity, there is no 
truly rational way of making an utterly convincing case against Holocaust 
deniers. And I do believe his own work in discrediting David Irving on 
scholarly grounds (showing it to be a tissue of fabrications, lies, 
distortions of sources, etc.) constitutes the most powerful critique there 
is.

Solidarity,
Ian 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu