Polarization and convergence in academic controversies

Abstract

Not many years ago both anthropology and political science experienced internal disputes-in the first case over the publication of a book accusing a noted anthropologist of endangering indigenous subjects and in the second over the nature of the field. While the first led to polarization, the second produced a partial convergence and modest reforms. This article examines the two processes and seeks the key mechanisms that produced those differences, closing with a call for broadening the study of contentious politics to cover non-public controversies like the ones examined in this article.Bad things often come in pairs. Not many years ago, American anthropologists endured a searing controversy triggered by the publication of a book, Darkness in El Dorado, written by an investigative journalist (Tierney 2000a, b). Exacerbated by overheated press coverage and by the leak of an e-mail to the press and the profession, the controversy portrayed a well-known anthropologist, Napoleon Chagnon, as an unethical Dr. Strangelove whose behavior in inoculating his indigenous subjects in the Amazon with a measles vaccine bordered on the genocidal. The controversy produced the twenty first century equivalent of a pamphlet war-e-mail exchanges and websites peppered with claims, counter-claims and accusations. It ended, predictably, with the preparation of a report by a blueribbon committee, but before it was over it had polarized the membership of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) into two warring camps.Just as anthropologists were wringing their hands over the Darkness in El Dorado affair, the American Political Science Association (APSA) was experiencing its own internal conflict. This was touched off when an e-mail from an unknown "Mr.Perestroika" condemned what he called the coalition of white males who, it claimed, Theor Soc

International Political Economy

“…Abbott's application of fractal distinctions is to methodological factions in sociology, but similar work has since been done in relation to academic and professional factions more broadly (see Tarrow 2008;Seabrooke and Tsingou 2014;Grenier and Hagmann 2016;McCourt 2017). Our basic approach here is easy to understand.…”

The networks and niches of international political economy

“…The USbased opponents to OEP argue that the approach ignores important systemic effects while concentrating on relationships between discrete actors, and that such reductionism is not a requirement for methodologically rigorous IPE scholarship (Oatley and Winecoff 2015). Research on the development of academic professions has demonstrated that scholarship is propelled by simple opposition between two elements recognized as important to an intellectual system (Abbott 2001;McCourt 2016;Seabrooke and Tsingou 2014;Tarrow 2008).…”

Computational Controversy

“…Moreover, the increasing delineation of opposing views results in an ever widening disagreement or polarization [42]: the debate forces participant to develop coherent viewpoints and manage to navigate a debate by consistently picking the "right" side on each of the aspects. Polarization emerges as discussants develop increasingly well-defined but diverging perspectives-a dynamic propelled by core-campaigner who usually develop the templates [32].…”