This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Dear Prof. Crusio, I would like to restore and make some useful additions to the line that you deleted (see below) about the difference between this journal and Peasant studies. What are your thoughts? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC))
PS: Thanks for the official thing - I couldn't figure it out.
My information is that the 2000 JPS/JOAC split occurred for different reasons, and the 2008 editorial coup at the JPS (see Talk: Journal of Peasant Studies) was unconnected with a desire to oust a pro-postmodern orientation. Brass, who edited the JPS in the period 1990-2008, has long been a critic of postmodernism and the cultural turn, so a pro-pomo orientation under his 2000-2008 editorship would anyway be unlikely. Many articles published in the JPS over the latter period (not just by him) are critiques of pomo-influenced approaches to the study of agrarian change, in particular those coming from the subaltern studies tradition. That, I think, is what the 2000 editorial quoted above was trying to announce: not a pro- but an anti-pomo orientation. Since there are both editorial articles (JPS volume 30, issue 2, 2003, pages 124-128; JPS volume 32, issue 1, 2005, pages 153-241) and exchanges with John Beverley (JPS volume 29, issues 3&4, 2002, pages 1-40 and 336-399; JPS volume 31, issue 2, 2004, pages 261-275; and JPS volume 33, issue 2, 2006, pages 304-44) reasserting the value of a Marxist and materialist historiography (denied by many pomo writers), the wish on the part of JOAC to rescue unjustly overlooked approaches (historical debates, etc.) cannot be the case. My understanding is that the 2008 coup at the JPS, and a de facto return from JOAC of the previous editors (or their proxies) had in all probability more to do with JPS critiques (many by Brass) in the 2000-2008 period aimed at agrarian populism and semi-feudalism. These were, entirely coincidentally, analytical approaches favored by the previous editors. To paraphrase The Godfather, it may well have been personal, not business; but we shall never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.177.221 ( talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
All credit to you, Msrasnw, for having raised what is a largely overlooked area of conflict: academic journals, who controls them editorially, why, and how this influences what appears between their covers (and, these days, on their websites). From time to time one hears of dramatic editorial fallings-out, resignations or expulsions from editorial boards, but (as far as I know) there has been little attempt thus far to examine the wider impact of such comings and goings on prevailing ideas. This kind of thing happened twice at The New Left Review, and twice also at the JPS (in 2000 and 2008), so it is important to ask (as you have done) why this occurs and what is the result. The recent climate-gate scandal, where holders of an alternative view about global warming were blocked from publication in key journals, underlines the need for transparency in this regard. Conflict behind the 2000 JPS/JOAC split is hinted at in a difficult-to-find endnote (JPS volume 32, number 1, 2005, page 169, endnote 4): “the fact that the first and second editors (of the JPS) were either involved in academic administration or took sabbaticals during this period reduced the amount of time they were able to devote to editorial tasks. Much of the JPS workload, especially that connected with the production of special issues, consequently fell on the third editor (Brass?). The resulting combination of workload imbalances, intellectual/political disagreements, plus the attention received by the published work of one of the editors in particular (also Brass??), all made personal relationships more stressful.” Page 154 of that same piece elaborates: “Following the departure of the third and most productive editor in late 1998, the remaining two not unnaturally found it hard to cope with the large editorial workload, and they themselves departed a short while after, in the year 2000.” As far as I am able to tell, it was this which led to the foundation of JOAC, and the return to the JPS of the third editor who, then and since, has it seems been declared an unperson by those at JOAC and (after the 2008 coup) the present JPS. His work is rarely mentioned by them, despite its importance, a situation which occasionally gives rise to ludicrous explanations. I’m told that when a founder-editor of JOAC (who previously edited JPS) touring Canada to publicize his new book on agrarian change was asked in a seminar why his book made no mention of Brass’s work, replied that Brass wrote very long articles!!! Apparently this ever-so-intellectually-rigorous reason for not referring to a significant contributor to a debate was met with giggles from the seminar audience, and it is not difficult to understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.101.116 ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Dear Prof. Crusio, I would like to restore and make some useful additions to the line that you deleted (see below) about the difference between this journal and Peasant studies. What are your thoughts? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC))
PS: Thanks for the official thing - I couldn't figure it out.
My information is that the 2000 JPS/JOAC split occurred for different reasons, and the 2008 editorial coup at the JPS (see Talk: Journal of Peasant Studies) was unconnected with a desire to oust a pro-postmodern orientation. Brass, who edited the JPS in the period 1990-2008, has long been a critic of postmodernism and the cultural turn, so a pro-pomo orientation under his 2000-2008 editorship would anyway be unlikely. Many articles published in the JPS over the latter period (not just by him) are critiques of pomo-influenced approaches to the study of agrarian change, in particular those coming from the subaltern studies tradition. That, I think, is what the 2000 editorial quoted above was trying to announce: not a pro- but an anti-pomo orientation. Since there are both editorial articles (JPS volume 30, issue 2, 2003, pages 124-128; JPS volume 32, issue 1, 2005, pages 153-241) and exchanges with John Beverley (JPS volume 29, issues 3&4, 2002, pages 1-40 and 336-399; JPS volume 31, issue 2, 2004, pages 261-275; and JPS volume 33, issue 2, 2006, pages 304-44) reasserting the value of a Marxist and materialist historiography (denied by many pomo writers), the wish on the part of JOAC to rescue unjustly overlooked approaches (historical debates, etc.) cannot be the case. My understanding is that the 2008 coup at the JPS, and a de facto return from JOAC of the previous editors (or their proxies) had in all probability more to do with JPS critiques (many by Brass) in the 2000-2008 period aimed at agrarian populism and semi-feudalism. These were, entirely coincidentally, analytical approaches favored by the previous editors. To paraphrase The Godfather, it may well have been personal, not business; but we shall never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.177.221 ( talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
All credit to you, Msrasnw, for having raised what is a largely overlooked area of conflict: academic journals, who controls them editorially, why, and how this influences what appears between their covers (and, these days, on their websites). From time to time one hears of dramatic editorial fallings-out, resignations or expulsions from editorial boards, but (as far as I know) there has been little attempt thus far to examine the wider impact of such comings and goings on prevailing ideas. This kind of thing happened twice at The New Left Review, and twice also at the JPS (in 2000 and 2008), so it is important to ask (as you have done) why this occurs and what is the result. The recent climate-gate scandal, where holders of an alternative view about global warming were blocked from publication in key journals, underlines the need for transparency in this regard. Conflict behind the 2000 JPS/JOAC split is hinted at in a difficult-to-find endnote (JPS volume 32, number 1, 2005, page 169, endnote 4): “the fact that the first and second editors (of the JPS) were either involved in academic administration or took sabbaticals during this period reduced the amount of time they were able to devote to editorial tasks. Much of the JPS workload, especially that connected with the production of special issues, consequently fell on the third editor (Brass?). The resulting combination of workload imbalances, intellectual/political disagreements, plus the attention received by the published work of one of the editors in particular (also Brass??), all made personal relationships more stressful.” Page 154 of that same piece elaborates: “Following the departure of the third and most productive editor in late 1998, the remaining two not unnaturally found it hard to cope with the large editorial workload, and they themselves departed a short while after, in the year 2000.” As far as I am able to tell, it was this which led to the foundation of JOAC, and the return to the JPS of the third editor who, then and since, has it seems been declared an unperson by those at JOAC and (after the 2008 coup) the present JPS. His work is rarely mentioned by them, despite its importance, a situation which occasionally gives rise to ludicrous explanations. I’m told that when a founder-editor of JOAC (who previously edited JPS) touring Canada to publicize his new book on agrarian change was asked in a seminar why his book made no mention of Brass’s work, replied that Brass wrote very long articles!!! Apparently this ever-so-intellectually-rigorous reason for not referring to a significant contributor to a debate was met with giggles from the seminar audience, and it is not difficult to understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.101.116 ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
References