Social Movements and the Ethics of Knowledge Production

Abstract

To see the final version of this work please visit the publisher's website. Access to the published online version may require a subscription.

From ‘Here’ to ‘There’: Social Movements, the Academy and Solidarity Research

“…Whilst arriving at the recognition that conventional academic approaches do not often serve the interests of social movements can be a bumpy process (Dawson and Sinwell 2012, 182), for those researchers, therefore, seeking to make their work more relevant to such movements, an epistemological recognition of the inherent utility of knowledge -its being for someone or something -leads to a concern with the production of knowledge that is practically useful for movements. This stands in contrast to research driven by abstract theorising, interpretive knowledge, or even knowledge harnessed for the purposes of enhancing an academic's career (Barker and Cox 2002;Juris 2008;Cox and Fominaya 2009;Santos 2012;Chesters 2012;Lewis 2012, 230). And again, once we invoke the notion of knowledge that is useful for movements, we have to be mindful of intra-movement variations in positionality (along lines of race, class, gender, age, sexual orientation, and others) that may affect what counts as 'useful' knowledge.…”

“…The first dimension refers to that knowledge which in various different ways is associated with the experiences, identities, and capacities, for example, of a particular subject (position) or group of subjects. These range from, for example, the experiences of a gay community in mourning (Engel 2001) to activists planning direct action (Juris 2007) to even humanity, whose latent capacity for radical agency is embodied the slogan 'Another World is Possible' (Chesters 2012). The second dimension, meanwhile, refers to knowledge of an external field, from the local to the planetary.…”

“…Others have argued for the contribution of the movement-oriented academic in analysing the internal dynamics of the movement and offering strategic, conceptual and theoretical reflection (Cox and Barker 2002;Juris 2007;Lewis 2012). Others, moreover, have identified their role as finding ways of articulating movement knowledge with formal processes of public policy-making (Chesters 2012). And others, finally, have recognised that there are more 'traditional' roles that can be performed by movement-sympathetic academics, which don't integrate movement knowledge per se, but do definitely integrate movement interests.…”

“…Often, this position is one of subalternity -of coming 'from below' (Cox and Fominaya 2009, 1) -in relation to hegemonic, dominant, and expert identities, discourses, experiences, interpretations and knowledges. This can endow both the knowledge that social movements produce and the recognition of their status as knowers with a contentious or political quality, as it is often 'difficult' for -and therefore resisted by -experts, political authorities and other elites (Eyerman and Jamison 1991;Casas-Cortés et al 2008;Cox and Fominaya 2009;Chesters 2012). The situatedness of the knowledge produced and held by movements and their members is of course often connected to their positionality as defined by race, class, gender, culture, age, employment status, religiosity, geographical location, and so on.…”

“…For example, many have argued that the positionality of the traditional academic -outside of the struggles of the movements that they research -leads to a preoccupation with interpretive knowledge or abstract theorising at the expense of more concrete, practical task-solving (Juris 2008, quoting Wacquant 1992Routledge 2004, 81, quoting Bauman 1992. Theoretical revision and career advancement are other interests that have been identified as leading to the production of knowledge that is at best irrelevant -and often even antagonistic -to social movements (Flacks 2004;Bevington and Dixon 2005;Federici 2009;Chesters 2012). Whilst arriving at the recognition that conventional academic approaches do not often serve the interests of social movements can be a bumpy process (Dawson and Sinwell 2012, 182), for those researchers, therefore, seeking to make their work more relevant to such movements, an epistemological recognition of the inherent utility of knowledge -its being for someone or something -leads to a concern with the production of knowledge that is practically useful for movements.…”